Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:04:58 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h Message-ID: <XFMail.20030429140458.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030429.120221.119859807.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Apr-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: > 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. Force-terminating the shared thread out from under other interrupt handlers would probably be a bad thing. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030429140458.jhb>