Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:15:53 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, matt@lkg.dec.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPX now available Message-ID: <199510180615.QAA14202@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> timeout() is no use if there is nothing to give up control to. >Control will return back to the caller of probe (or attach or ...). >probe could return a meaningful status like EINPROGRESS which would >tell the caller that the probe in continuing. Eventually the driver >(via timeout) will call probe_done() to say the probe finished. For some reason I forgot about you mentioning timeouts and thought you meant something more formal involving lots of driver probe/attach states and entry points in each driver to handle state transitions. This might be good for forcing you to think about synchronization but it would involve modifying too many drivers to begin with. >Let me say upfront that I would love to have kernel threads. But >I'm wary that you are underestinating the amount of work needed to >add them. Properly done kernel thread services are probably the >most significant and useful addition that can be made to FreeBSD. >Can you say SMP? Real pthread support? Better real time support >by thread preemption? I only want toy threads (at first) to allow a common interface in drivers that are called early. You're probably right that I'm underestimating the difficulties. I want interrupts to work normally after they are attached, and few or no probe/attach routines are prepared for interrupts. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510180615.QAA14202>