Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:40:44 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@caspian.plutotech.com> To: current@FreeBSD.org, tech-kern@FreeBSD.org, tech@openbsd.org Subject: Changing the semantics of splsoftclock() Message-ID: <199906251640.KAA01742@caspian.plutotech.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've come across several instances where I need to fiddle with state that is also touched by a timeout handler. From a naming standpoint, splsoftclock() sounds like the correct spl routine to use for protecting these activities. Unfortunately this only holds true if splsoftclock() is used in a process context where the fact that it may actually lower the ipl to softclock is not an issue. As it currently stands, in most cases you can rely on the fact that any spl level will also block callouts, but this seems risky. What I'd like to see happen is for either the semantics of splsoftclock() to change, or to have a new spl introduced (splcallout()??). The hope is to provide a consistent interface across all *BSDs which is why I've addressed this to all of the *BSD projects. I look forward to you input on this proposal. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906251640.KAA01742>