Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:44:27 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: splFoo() question Message-ID: <38D6C5EB.E96A6514@softweyr.com> References: <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org> <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org> <200003202057.NAA17486@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote:
>
> In message <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org> Guido van Rooij writes:
> : perhaps we need some mutex mechanism?
>
> Yes. Right now the mutex mechanism that we have is blocking of
> interrupts when the bit is set in the cpl. I guess I'm a little too
> close to the mechanism and need to step back.
>
> You are right that I'm asking for a call that is approximately "block
> my interrupt handler from running until I say it is ok." A more
> generalized mutex/locking scheme is needed so that I can just grab a
> mutex in my code and in my ISR and the right thing will just happen.
A per-driver mutex, perhaps? This would save us from potential
deadly embraces within a single driver, at least.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38D6C5EB.E96A6514>