Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:15:40 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Alfred Perlstein" <perlsta@sunyit.edu> Cc: daniel_sobral@voga.com.br, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uiomove() Message-ID: <199801231245.XAA00609@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:39:53 CDT." <199801230845.IAA11935@fang.cs.sunyit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm hoping i don't get yelled at here, but why not queue all subsequent > open operations and block those processes operations on the device? > at least until a read is done? This doesn't necessarily help; if a process holding an open descriptor on your device forks, there are now two processes holding open descriptors but there has been no second open() call. This has been discussed to death. > what's the point of an encryption card if you can't have multiple processes > acesses it, at least "transparently" in parrallel? I dunno, but the card in question performs stream, not block encryption, and there is no mechanism (that Daniel seems to know of anyway) to recover context from the card to allow switching streams. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801231245.XAA00609>