Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:19:56 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@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: <4E5BAE1C.7040100@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201108291654.23054.hselasky@freebsd.org> References: <201108291627.42477.hselasky@freebsd.org> <4E5BA31C.7070103@FreeBSD.org> <201108291654.23054.hselasky@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 29/08/2011 17:54 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> 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.
kern_yield is sufficiently recent, ~ 1/2 year old, and it has replaced uio_yield.
r218424 is the commit.
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E5BAE1C.7040100>