Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:07:42 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, brian@FreeBSD.org, archie@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, smp@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: Netgraph and SMP Message-ID: <200012042307.eB4N7gD93751@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.org> of "Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:50:07 PST." <200012042250.eB4Mo7F01738@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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.
Is it desirable to lock up running kldunload(8) ?
> --
> ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
> rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
> to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
> people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
> V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
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?200012042307.eB4N7gD93751>