Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 02:34:35 -0800 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_power.c Message-ID: <4371D0BB.9010608@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20051109204951.K68350@delplex.bde.org> References: <200511090732.jA97W2ir099375@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051109204951.K68350@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Warner Losh wrote: > >> Modified files: >> sys/kern subr_power.c >> Log: >> Kick off the suspend sequence from the keyboard in a SWI rather than >> in the hardware interrupt context (even if it is likely just an >> ithread). We don't document that suspend/resume routines are run from >> such a context and some of the things that happen in those routines >> aren't interrupt safe. Since there's no real need to run from that >> context, this restores assumptions that suspend routines have made. >> >> This fixes Thierry Herbelot's 'Trying to sleep while sleeping is >> prohibited' problem. > > > Er, SWIs are interrupts too. Trying to sleep in a SWI handler should > cause the same message. This commit uses the general taskqueue SWI > handler. taskqueue(9) implicitly says that only the taskqueue thread > handler can sleep (it gives malloc(M_WAITOK) as an example of something > that can only be done in thread context). I agree. You should use a generic thread taskqueue. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4371D0BB.9010608>