Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:46:30 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.org> Cc: smp@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, archie@FreeBSD.org, brian@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Subject: Re: Netgraph and SMP Message-ID: <XFMail.001204144630.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200012042250.eB4Mo7F01738@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04-Dec-00 Mike Smith wrote: >> > The simplest structure for this is a shared/exclusive lock >> > that supports intention; Terry would have ranted about this. (He would >> > have called it a SIX-lock, I think). >> [.....] >> > This may sound simplistic, but given that you don't necessarily make >> > changes to Netgraph very often, this is quite likely more than adequate >> > for now. >> >> Nice, I never realised there were shared/exclusive locks available. >> I think netgraph nodes would also need to have a ``modevent'' that >> fails MOD_UNLOAD events if any locks are outstanding. > > Er, no, you just have to acquire the exclusive lock in the MOD_UNLOAD > handler. > > As for the actual availibility of SIX-style locks; I'm fairly sure you > can do this with the lockmgr. Yes. See the allproc_lock as an example. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.001204144630.jhb>