On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
As
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
I think
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
Hi,
On
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Matthew Fleming mdf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday,
On Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46:58 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Saturday, November
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46:58 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at
On Friday 05 November 2010 20:06:12 John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Friday 05 November
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 20:06:12 John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM,
Hi,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta-ta_pending cannot change,
nor can the set of running tasks. So the order of checks is
irrelevant.
I
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta-ta_pending cannot change,
nor
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
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should be a drain
method for
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
I think that if a
On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at
On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at
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
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:13:08 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, November 05,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:13:08 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
prevent a task from becoming enqueued again. The same issue exists
with taskqueue_drain().
I find that strange, because that means if I queue a task again while it
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
prevent a task from becoming enqueued again. The same issue exists
with
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
prevent a task from
On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
True, but no taskqueue(9)
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 08:39:45 Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Monday 01 November 2010 22:14:49 John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
the USB process
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:55:09 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
Hi!
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:55:09 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
Hi!
On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
(and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work and
re-base my patch.
--HPS
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
(and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work and
re-base my patch.
It's on
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
For the purpose of speed, I'm not opposed to breaking the KBI by using
a doubly-linked TAILQ, but I don't think the difference will matter
all that often (perhaps I'm wrong and some taskqueues have dozens of
pending tasks?)
Hi,
In
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
(and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
(and there is in
On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:38 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:38 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should be a drain
method for that. I.E. two methods: One to stop and one to cancel/drain. Can
you
On Monday 01 November 2010 22:14:49 John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more
direct way that to
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
that to wrap it.
The limitation of the existing taskqueue system is that it only guarantees
execution at a given priority level. USB
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net wrote:
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
that to wrap it.
The limitation of the existing taskqueue
On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky hsela...@c2i.net
wrote:
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more
On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
that to wrap it.
The limitation of the existing taskqueue system
42 matches
Mail list logo
