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

Reply via email to