From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Oct 29 22:16:41 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA18040
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:16:41 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from iq.org (proff@profane.iq.org [203.4.184.222])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA18034
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:16:32 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from proff@iq.org)
From: proff@iq.org
Received: (qmail 18191 invoked by uid 110); 30 Oct 1997 06:16:07 -0000
Date: 30 Oct 1997 06:16:07 -0000
Message-ID: <19971030061607.18190.qmail@iq.org>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: kernel spinlocks, splbio(), MUTEX etc
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


I have a possible access contention between two peices of code,
one hanging off a timeout() interrupt and the other called via
the VFS sub-system. I don't want to lock the object they are 
accessing by using splbio() as both bits of code use around
32k instructions.

ideas?

-J
.