From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 20 9: 1:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40E537B92E for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:01:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost.freebsd.dk [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA19537; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:01:23 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Warner Losh Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: splFoo() question In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 18 Mar 2000 13:31:28 MST." <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:01:23 +0100 Message-ID: <19535.953571683@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org>, Warner Losh writes: >I'd like to be able to do some simple spl locking in a driver that I'm >writing. While I could go the splhigh() route, I'm concerned that >spending lots of time at splhigh could cause problems, and some of my >critical sections look to be very expensive. They only need >protection against the card itself, not against the entire system. It >just seems to be an overly large hammer. I miss this too. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message