Subject: IPL_LOCK oddity
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/23/2006 17:08:55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In chatting with dbj, I was reminded that on a number of ports, we have=20
IPL_SERIAL higher than IPL_LOCK. IPL_IPI also is higher than IPL_LOCK on=20
x86 (I didn't check extensively).
The problem is that our serial port code, in an effort to be MP-safe,=20
takes locks. Including the code that runs at IPL_SERIAL. Thus IPL_SERIAL >=
IPL_LOCK is very very bad. :-)
So is there any reason we don't just change IPL_LOCK to IPL_SERIAL?
Also, is the IPI code structured so that it doesn't have to take locks?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----