Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:07:42 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, brian@FreeBSD.org, archie@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, smp@FreeBSD.org, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: Netgraph and SMP Message-ID: <200012042307.eB4N7gD93751@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.org> of "Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:50:07 PST." <200012042250.eB4Mo7F01738@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > The simplest structure for this is a shared/exclusive lock > > > that supports intention; Terry would have ranted about this. (He would > > > have called it a SIX-lock, I think). > > [.....] > > > This may sound simplistic, but given that you don't necessarily make > > > changes to Netgraph very often, this is quite likely more than adequate > > > for now. > > > > Nice, I never realised there were shared/exclusive locks available. > > I think netgraph nodes would also need to have a ``modevent'' that > > fails MOD_UNLOAD events if any locks are outstanding. > > Er, no, you just have to acquire the exclusive lock in the MOD_UNLOAD > handler. Is it desirable to lock up running kldunload(8) ? > -- > ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his > rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want > to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force > people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] > V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E -- Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org> <http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012042307.eB4N7gD93751>