On Thursday 29 September 2005 03:36 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:14 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
Actually, you would think that it could be initialized
Hi,
dev_lock() looks this way:
void
dev_lock(void)
{
if (!mtx_initialized(devmtx))
mtx_init(devmtx, cdev, NULL, MTX_DEF);
mtx_lock(devmtx);
}
I wonder why is the mtx_initialized checking necessary? shouldnt explicit
initialization be sufficient?
thnx for answer
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:55:38PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
Hi,
dev_lock() looks this way:
void
dev_lock(void)
{
if (!mtx_initialized(devmtx))
mtx_init(devmtx, cdev, NULL, MTX_DEF);
mtx_lock(devmtx);
}
I wonder why is the mtx_initialized checking
On Thursday 29 September 2005 01:04 pm, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:55:38PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
Hi,
dev_lock() looks this way:
void
dev_lock(void)
{
if (!mtx_initialized(devmtx))
mtx_init(devmtx, cdev, NULL, MTX_DEF);
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
Actually, you would think that it could be initialized either via an early
SYSINIT() or in the init_mutexes() function in kern_mutex.c and thus not need
the early check and avoid penalizing dev_lock().
phk, how early his dev_lock needed?
Far
On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:14 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
Actually, you would think that it could be initialized either via an early
SYSINIT() or in the init_mutexes() function in kern_mutex.c and thus not
need the early check and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:14 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Baldwin writes:
Actually, you would think that it could be initialized either via an early
SYSINIT() or in the init_mutexes() function in
7 matches
Mail list logo