Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:01:57 -0700 From: Matthew Fleming <mdf356@gmail.com> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org>, Weongyo Jeong <weongyo.jeong@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-usb@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Outline of USB process integration in the kernel taskqueue system Message-ID: <AANLkTin3Zp82KDJiunS1A1Wf3bSeWGFxh8wTc4Gu6551@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201011041941.09662.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <201011012054.59551.hselasky@c2i.net> <AANLkTi=83-ZALkn2T-g_DnbfSPF-MGz14Bp%2BDN-9toZp@mail.gmail.com> <201011041029.51864.jhb@freebsd.org> <201011041941.09662.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> wro= te: > On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote: >> =A0(and there is in Jeff's OFED branch) > > Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work= and > re-base my patch. It's on svn.freebsd.org: http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/projects/ofed/head/sys/kern/subr_taskque= ue.c?view=3Dlog http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D209422 For the purpose of speed, I'm not opposed to breaking the KBI by using a doubly-linked TAILQ, but I don't think the difference will matter all that often (perhaps I'm wrong and some taskqueues have dozens of pending tasks?) Thanks, matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTin3Zp82KDJiunS1A1Wf3bSeWGFxh8wTc4Gu6551>