From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 20 13:20:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6C237C44F for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:57:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19482; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:57:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA17486; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:57:03 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200003202057.NAA17486@harmony.village.org> To: Guido van Rooij Subject: Re: splFoo() question Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:00:08 +0100." <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org> References: <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org> <200003182031.NAA97975@harmony.village.org> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:57:03 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000320210008.A59405@gvr.gvr.org> Guido van Rooij writes: : perhaps we need some mutex mechanism? Yes. Right now the mutex mechanism that we have is blocking of interrupts when the bit is set in the cpl. I guess I'm a little too close to the mechanism and need to step back. You are right that I'm asking for a call that is approximately "block my interrupt handler from running until I say it is ok." A more generalized mutex/locking scheme is needed so that I can just grab a mutex in my code and in my ISR and the right thing will just happen. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message