Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:54:22 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@FreeBSD.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r223989 - head/sys/dev/usb/input Message-ID: <201108291654.23054.hselasky@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4E5BA31C.7070103@FreeBSD.org> References: <201108291627.42477.hselasky@freebsd.org> <4E5BA31C.7070103@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 29 August 2011 16:33:00 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> Not sure if this answers my question, which is not about pause vs
> ukbd_yield, but is about ukbd_yield vs kern_yield.
> In other words, why you couldn't simply use kern_yield where you used
> ukbd_yield?
Is this a new function. I think I used the following as an example:
void
uio_yield(void)
{
struct thread *td;
td = curthread;
DROP_GIANT();
thread_lock(td);
sched_prio(td, td->td_user_pri);
mi_switch(SW_INVOL | SWT_RELINQUISH, NULL);
thread_unlock(td);
PICKUP_GIANT();
}
As long as the kern_yield() lets the USB worker threads and XHCI interrupts
run it should be fine. pause() is better though.
--HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108291654.23054.hselasky>