On 03-Jul-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Julian Elischer writes:
> > >
> > > However, it does seem a bit silly, as we end up dropping
> > > and-reaquiring the sched lock quite a few times:
> > That's why I just asked you to test the concept..
> > If I know that just aquiring it here is ok,
> > (I presume you tried doing some work like this)
> > that tells me that this code isn't called from some odd place,
> > with the sched lock already set.
> > (that and code inspection of course..)
> > Now we know it works we can try optimise it..
> > I'm going home now for dinner,
> > so if you feel like checking this or something mor optimal in,
> > be my guest :-)
> OK, I've checked in the unoptimized fix. Please do optimize it when
> you get a chance.
Erm, I thought I changd signotify() to require sched_lock and made the
second half of psignal() (the whole case statement) lock sched_lock.
Did you change that? (To Julian)
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message