From owner-freebsd-smp  Tue Jun 27 11:20:25 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701EB37B514
	for <freebsd-smp@freebsd.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com)
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1])
	by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01315;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:19:38 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200006271819.MAA01315@berserker.bsdi.com>
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: David Greenman <dg@root.com>, freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Stepping on Toes 
From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:19:38 -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

}
}    Yes, I see it.  I agree.  You don't even need to hold a scheduling
}    lock... all you need to hold is Giant.

Sorry, I wasn't real clear. I didn't mean to imply that it was
necessary to hold the scheduling lock in unsafe code. It is necessary
to have a scheduling lock to protect the run queues and friends.

Chuck


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message