On Friday 24 December 2004 07:13 am, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> What should I use instead? A semaphore? > > > >You shouldn't have unrelated kernel threads waiting for a user > >process at all, so this sounds like a design problem, regardless > >of which mutual exclusion primitive you use. (Bear in mind that I > >haven't actually looked into what you're trying to do.) In any > >case, you can always use mutexes to implement whatever other > >synchronization mechanism you need. > > I wanted that the device can only be opened once, and holding a mutex while > it is open seemed like a simple idea. (Since mtx_trylock() will then fail > -- easy to implement.)
Use a flag in your softc and use a mutex to protect access to the flag. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
