Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:54:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Norbert Koch <NKoch@demig.de>, "Freebsd-Hackers@Freebsd. Org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: await & asleep Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0507271249120.3804-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <42E7B7B5.30708@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Scott Long wrote: > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Norbert Koch wrote: > > > > > >>>>The functions await() and asleep() in kern_synch.c > >>>>are marked as EXPERIMENTAL/UNTESTED. > >>>>Is this comment still valid? Does anyone have used > >>>>those functions successfully? Should I better not > >>>>use them in my device driver code for RELENG_4? > >>>>How do I correctly cancel a request (as I should do > >>>>according to the man page): "asleep (NULL, 0, NULL, 0)"? > >>> > >>>The await family was removed in 5.x and beyond, so trying to > >>>use them in 4.x will make your driver very unportable. There > >>>are better ways than await to handle delayed events. > > > > > > Well, there's tsleep() and wakeup() for FreeBSD < 5.0. Other > > than that, what else can you do? These functions are deprecated > > in 5.x and 6.x in favor of condvar(9) and mutex(9), so you should > > really use those instead of tsleep() and wakeup(). > > > > It seems the kernel in -current is still using tsleep() and > > wakeup() in some places. I thought we got rid of all these... > > > > ???? Can you explain why tsleep and wakeup should no longer be > used? I wasn't aware that they were formally deprecated. My mistake then. I thought they were deprecated when mutex and CVs were introduced. There is no need for them except for compatability, and the priority argument of tsleep() doesn't have any meaning any longer, right? -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0507271249120.3804-100000>