From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 29 11:04:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A49337B423 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail12.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.212]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5AB43FD7 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:04:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 7735 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 18:05:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 29 Apr 2003 18:05:01 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3TI4qOv018966; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:04:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030429.120221.119859807.imp@bsdimp.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:04:58 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: "M. Warner Losh" cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: gallatin@cs.duke.edu cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:04:58 -0000 On 29-Apr-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200304291800.h3TI0Dnr040242@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> > Garrett Wollman writes: >: < 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/