On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:30:38PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > Hi, > > In the patch attached to this e-mail I included Matthew Fleming's patch > aswell. > > 1) I renamed taskqueue_cancel() into taskqueue_stop(), hence that resembles > the words of the callout and USB API's terminology for doing the same. > > 2) I turns out I need to have code in subr_taskqueue.c to be able to make the > operations atomic. > > 3) I did not update the manpage in this patch. Will do that before a commit. > > 4) My patch implements separate state keeping in "struct task_pair", which > avoids having to change any KPI's for now, like suggested by John Baldwin I > think. > > 5) In my implementation I hard-coded the priority argument to zero, so that > enqueuing is fast. > > Comments are welcome!
The patch looks almost you moved usb_process.c code into taskqueue(9) that I means it still follows that a entry which enqueued at last should be executed at last. It seems that at least it's not a general for taskqueue(9). In my humble opinion it looks a trick. I think it'd better to find a general solution to solve it though I used sx(9) lock in my patches. regards, Weongyo Jeong _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"