Re: Equivalent of FreeBSD kernel semaphore?

[buhrow%lothlorien.nfbcal.org@localhost (Brian Buhrow)]

        Hello.  I'm with Thor.  Do what you need to inside the driver itself.
The idea is to make the driver work with the NetBSD kernel, not the NetBSD
kernel work with the driver.
-Brian

On Jan 9, 10:16pm, Brian Buhrow wrote:
} Subject: Re: Equivalent of FreeBSD kernel semaphore?
}       hello.  When I did the work to get the zaptel drivers running under
} NetBSD-5.x, I used condiition variables and mutexes to get the job done.
} It was a fairly large mechanical job to get things going, but conceptually,
} it was pretty simple, and once I got the basic formats right, everything
} ran pretty smoothly.  My guess is that there is a osdep.h file in the dahdi
} source tree somewhere, and you can do most of the definitions for the
} infrastructure you want to use in there.  Then it's just a matter of minor
} cleanup to deal with differences in the arguments to falloc and friends
} inside the NetBSD kernel.
} -Brian
} 
} On Jan 10,  3:54am, Christos Zoulas wrote:
} } Subject: Re: Equivalent of FreeBSD kernel semaphore?
} } In article <1kdmwvf.163omky1siecjlM%manu%netbsd.org@localhost>,
} } Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
} } >Hello
} } >
} } >First problem for porting DADHI drivers: the FreeBSD version uses kernel
} } >semaphores:
} } >http://www.unix.com/man-page/FreeBSD/9/sema/
} } >
} } >What is the NetBSD equivalent? I know our locks, conditions variables,
} } >but what about semaphores?
} } 
} } Why don't you implement them the same way like FreeBSD did, using a mutex
} } and a condition variable? I don't know how they are used in the DAHDI driver
} } but this might not be even necessary.
} } 
} } christos
} } 
} >-- End of excerpt from Christos Zoulas
} 
} 
>-- End of excerpt from Brian Buhrow