Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:02:21 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h Message-ID: <20030429.120221.119859807.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200304291800.h3TI0Dnr040242@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20030429133708.A84234@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20030429.115524.21927823.imp@bsdimp.com> <200304291800.h3TI0Dnr040242@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200304291800.h3TI0Dnr040242@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> writes:
: <<On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:55:24 -0600 (MDT), "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> said:
:
: > This likely means that some higher level of locking is necessary so
: > that we can make sure that the interrupts can't happen once detach
: > starts.
:
: What am I missing here? You can just disable interrupts in the
: hardware first thing, while holding whatever lock the handler would
: normally need to obtain, then force-terminate the handler thread if it
: happens to be waiting for that lock after you're done tearing it down.
Shared interrupts mean that your ISR gets called, even if the card
isn't the one doing the interrupting. Also, you can't force terminate
interrupt threads at this time.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030429.120221.119859807.imp>