* Mike Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000807 01:25] wrote:
> > * Stephen McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000805 08:49] wrote:
> > > 
> > > Patch 2 is smaller and possibly controversial.  Normally bufdaemon and
> > > syncer are sleeping when they are told to suspend.  This delays shutdown
> > > by a few boring seconds.  With this patch, it is zippier.  I expect people
> > > to complain about this shortcut, but every sleeping process should expect
> > > to be woken for no reason at all.  Basic kernel premise.
> > 
> > You better bet it's controversial, this isn't "Basic kernel premise"
> Actually, that depends.  It is definitely poor programming practice to 
> not check the condition for which you slept on wakeup.

Stephen's patches didn't give them that option, the syncer could be
in some other part of vfs that doesn't expect to be woken up, perhaps
in uniterruptable sleep... perhaps waiting for a DMA transfer?

How does one check if the data filled into a buffer is actually from
the driver and not just stale?

> > *boom* *crash* *ow* :)
> Doctor:  So don't do that.
> In this case, the relevant processes just need to learn to check whether 
> they've been woken in order to die.

No, they need to signify that it's safe to wake them up early.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to