Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:23:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RFC: unit_list routines Message-ID: <200105231523.LAA29635@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <200105230815.f4N8FfC20001@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> References: <peter@wemm.org> <20010523022329.ADF97380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> <200105230815.f4N8FfC20001@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 23 May 2001 09:15:41 +0100, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> said: > The rman stuff seems to be overkill: > o It uses a global mutex when allocating resources. ...which you can ignore... > o It has a local mutex for waiting on resources (and an RF_ACTIVE flag). ...which you can also ignore... > o It supports RF_SHARABLE/RF_TIMESHARE resources (I guess this isn't > an overhead, just unnecessary). ...which you can also ignore... > o It's implemented in terms of ``struct resource *''s, most of which > inappropriate. Inappropriate in what way? > o It mucks about with device structs when reserving resources ...which you can just pass as a null pointer.... > Do you really think it's appropriate to try to re-use the rman stuff > for what I want to do ? Given that the code is already there, and is already compiled into every kernel, and (I hope) already has the bugs worked out, I would suggest that it would not be a bad thing. OTOH, if all you are doing is keeping an array of one-bit flags, and having an arbitrarily-large upper limit on the number of devices is acceptable, it's probably cheaper to just do it with a few macros. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105231523.LAA29635>