From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 10 03:11:43 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AF216A4CE for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:11:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EEE43D2D for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:11:43 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0A38kSt028052; Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:08:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:09:10 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20050109.200910.28786915.imp@bsdimp.com> To: julian@elischer.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <41E1C8C5.4070605@elischer.org> References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050109174427.0802c640@pop3> <20050109.125213.02300240.imp@bsdimp.com> <41E1C8C5.4070605@elischer.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-usb@hub.freebsd.org cc: dinkevich@gmail.com Subject: Re: stack synchronization X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:11:43 -0000 In message: <41E1C8C5.4070605@elischer.org> Julian Elischer writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote: : > In message: <6.1.2.0.2.20050109174427.0802c640@pop3> : > Boris Dinkevich writes: : > : Hello everyone, : > : : > : When going over the usb-host stack, it appears that synchronization is done : > : via splusb/x. : > : But in the 5.3 release, these functions are implemented at stubs. : > : : > : How is the sync done then ? : > : : > : Also, with soft_interrupts, it appears there is no need for spls, am I : > : correct ? : > : > Giant locking. : > : > I have patches to move the interrupt outside of giant, but the rest of : > the stack is still under giant locking. : : it may be worth just adding a single "usb system" lock.. well duh! However, there's a lot of things that can trivially be done with giant. Locking with a usb subsystem lock takes a lot more effort... Warner