--nextPart2105075.QQjgO4mIcE
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hello,

> On 2005-08-31 rittera@cc.wwu.edu wrote:
> > if(curlwp !=3D NULL) {
> >     lockmgr(&lock, LK_EXCLUSIVE, NULL);
> > }
>
>   This is wrong.  Locks need to be used everywhere you access the data
> structure being protected.  Any data that will be accessed from an
> interrupt must be protected by a simple_lock.  You also need to use
> splfoo() and a simple lock to avoid your wake before sleep problem (see
> the slock argument to ltsleep; the context switch will change the IPL
> then restore it for you so you can use the PNORELOCK flag and splx after
> the resume if you don't want the lock for anything else).

Right now I'm just focusing on getting a driver that is stable on a single=
=20
processor system (I want to get it tested and working on a multiprocessor=20
system eventually).  Anyway I may be wrong, but I was thinking that=20
simplelock's only make a difference when there's more than one processor=20
that can run at a time.

Thanks :-)

--nextPart2105075.QQjgO4mIcE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQBDHWggdrBy3JhXjT8RAluZAJ9xxwXDfvIaEPaFnGyNGDG9ht+64gCeP5mL
RuKTafBHPGiHU42pljXw8iI=
=tYpJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2105075.QQjgO4mIcE--