From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 3 20:13:30 2001 From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 3 20:13:29 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com (aslan.scsiguy.com [63.229.232.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D2537B400; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:13:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from scsiguy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aslan.scsiguy.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f044DQs12669; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:13:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from gibbs@scsiguy.com) Message-Id: <200101040413.f044DQs12669@aslan.scsiguy.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: John Baldwin Cc: Jonathan Chen , imp@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Cardbus woes In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:43:57 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 21:13:26 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >I was mostly trying to push the locks down so that they weren't held during >attach and remove. I was using them to protect mostly the kthread state flag >in the softc, as well as other variables in the softc. > >> Comments? It seems to me that having a single thread per-softc gives you this protection without requiring any locks. Other than having to aquire Giant at thread starup (as most code below us is not thread safe yet), I don't see any other locking requirements. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message