Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:33:00 +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: <4E5BA31C.7070103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201108291627.42477.hselasky@freebsd.org> References: <201107132107.p6DL7ojq099900@svn.freebsd.org> <4E5B9334.5020502@FreeBSD.org> <201108291627.42477.hselasky@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 29/08/2011 17:27 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Monday 29 August 2011 15:25:08 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> Another question - why ukbd_yield() is needed?
>> Why kern_yield() would not be good here?
>> What are the priority manipulations in ukbd_yield?
>> Not saying that the code is incorrect, just that this is not explained in
>> the commit message.
>
> This is needed during mountroot prompt, to allow the worker threads of the USB
> code to run, because the mountroot code is like:
>
> while (1) {
> cngetc();
> }
>
> instead of:
>
> while (1) {
> cngetc();
> pause("WAIT_A_BIT", 1);
> }
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?
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E5BA31C.7070103>