From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Mar 20 12: 0:17 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from gvr.gvr.org (gvr.gvr.org [194.151.74.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177DF37B8B8
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:00:11 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from guido@gvr.org)
Received: by gvr.gvr.org (Postfix, from userid 657)
	id CE284A85A; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:00:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:00:08 +0100
From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>
To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: splFoo() question
Message-ID: <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org>
References: <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i
In-Reply-To: <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org>; from Warner Losh on Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 01:31:28PM -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 01:31:28PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

perhaps we need some mutex mechanism? 

-Guido


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message