Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 02:19:30 -0500 (EST) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org>, smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Where to initialize certain locks... Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020402021451.18134G-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20020402071440.GF93885@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: :* Andrew R. Reiter <arr@FreeBSD.org> [020401 22:16] wrote: :> :> I've been looking at some global values that are not associated with any :> one subsystem, but need a lock at some point in order to guarantee correct :> bheavior -- specifically, at the moment, the securelevel value. I do not :> right away see a clean place for the related lock to be initialized... Am :> I missing some SYSINIT() (or SYSINIT()s) that are meant for helping to :> initialize locks in this type of situation while still :> protecting/promoting correct order (to ensure we init prior to a lock :> attempt)? Or is that not a good path to go down? : :SYSINIT should work provided you run them after the mutex subsystem is :setup. :) Well, yes :-) My main concern is that I kind of fear starting to encounter a number of these situations as we go along and need to now have a number of SYSINITs, each of which only is there to initialize a single mutex -- also the issue of where to put the SYSINITs (and the related code). Is this something Im just over thinking about? :-)) Andrew -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org 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?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020402021451.18134G-100000>