Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:13:34 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel crash w/o reason Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412241311530.19395@yvahk01.tjqt.qr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0412231700480.8053-100000@sea.ntplx.net> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0412231700480.8053-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> What should I use instead? A semaphore? >You shouldn't have unrelated kernel threads waiting for a user >process at all, so this sounds like a design problem, regardless >of which mutual exclusion primitive you use. (Bear in mind that I >haven't actually looked into what you're trying to do.) In any >case, you can always use mutexes to implement whatever other >synchronization mechanism you need. I wanted that the device can only be opened once, and holding a mutex while it is open seemed like a simple idea. (Since mtx_trylock() will then fail -- easy to implement.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.61.0412241311530.19395>