Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:25:07 +0530
From: Pranav Peshwe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Doubts about PICKUP_GIANT() and mtx_lock(Giant).
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
What is effectively
On 1/15/06, Tiffany Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does FreeBSD support rwlocks?
On 1/13/06, prime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/13/06, Kamal R. Prasad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Priority need not be propagated to readers as they will not block
other
readers.
Most likely, you
On 1/13/06, Kamal R. Prasad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Priority need not be propagated to readers as they will not block other
readers.
Most likely, you only need to propagate to the writer to avoid priority
inversron.
regards
-kamal
On 1/13/06, prime [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Hi hackers,
I have a question about how priority propagation works on
read/write lock.On locks that have only one owner at a determinate
moment,we can simply propagate the priority to the owner of lock,but
read/write lock may have many owners at some time,so how can we know
who are the owners?
On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find that I can't include net/ethernet.h when I programming
with libnet,because $(CC) complains that struct ether_addr redefined.
But I need some definitions in net/ethernet.h,struct ether_header etc.
Currently,I just copy the
On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:55:38 +0800
From: prime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: prime [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problem about libnet on FreeBSD 6.0
To: Gilbert
On 1/1/06, ari edelkind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did you read my post?
Or are you not on the list? I sent my response directly to the list,
not including you specifically.
ari
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In my opinion,struct ether_addr is defined both in
net/ethernet.h and
Hi hackers,
I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
give the lock to the first thread waiting on the turnstile.And a
thread gets the mutex after he returned from turnstile_wait so he
can simply jump out the
Hi hackers,
I find that I can't include net/ethernet.h when I programming
with libnet,because $(CC) complains that struct ether_addr redefined.
But I need some definitions in net/ethernet.h,struct ether_header etc.
Currently,I just copy the definitions I need from net/ethernet.h,but
it seems
Hi hackers,
I want to understand the current implementation of
turnstile,and meet some questions about its locks' logicality.
turnstile's ``ts_blocked field is protected by both
``td_contested lock and its turnstile_chain lock, but
I think its turnstile_chain lock is enough,because we
allways get
On 12/18/05, rookie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi hackers,
I want to understand the current implementation of
turnstile,and meet some questions about its locks' logicality.
[snip]
It's used to lock td_contested member of struct thread structure and all
issues linked to it (as you can
hi hackers,
I want to use turnstile to implement sx_lock( or read/write lock),but
find that there is a big obstacle,
ONE sx_lock needs TWO queues to put waiters on,one for readers and the
other one for writers,but ONE turnstile can only supply ONE queue,and ONE
sx_lock can only get ONE turnstile.
On 12/14/05, Joel Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 22:44 +0800, prime wrote:
hi hackers,
Are there anybody are interested in project Usable lock implementation
with
SX-semantics(http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-sxsemantics)?
Can we discuss it here? if so
hi hackers,
Are there anybody are interested in project Usable lock implementation with
SX-semantics(http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-sxsemantics)?
Can we discuss it here? if so,share you ideas please.
or anywhere else ? please tell me,thanks.
--
Three passions, simple but
Hi all,
When I install 6.0-BETA2 on qemu,it PANICs.I don't know whether it is
qemu's bug or 6.0-BETA2's.Here is output of trace:
Tracing pid 26 tid 100026 td 0xc1740300
kdb_enter(c0856274) at kdb_enter+0x2b
panic(c0870f1a,c72d4000,407ea84d,1,0) at panic+0x127
and more information about the panic,it said:
panic:vm_fault: fault on nofault entry, addr: c72d400
--
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life:
the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for
the suffering of mankind.
thanks for all your responses.I know that it is just conditional
compiling construct,but I just can't understand the nested *test* of
SPARSE_MAPPING( the 2nd #ifdef ... is nested in the 1st one).
Thanks .I think I get it now.
On Monday 02 May 2005 13:35, gerarra at tin.it wrote:
There is a
There is a #ifdef SPARSE_MAPPING at line 701,and again a #ifdef
SPARSE_MAPPING at line 713.I just can't understand the second
one.Does it have any special mean ?
thanks .
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
18 matches
Mail list logo
