--- Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> What should I use instead? A semaphore? > > >You shouldn't have unrelated kernel threads waiting > for a user > >process at all, so this sounds like a design > problem, regardless > >of which mutual exclusion primitive you use. (Bear > in mind that I > >haven't actually looked into what you're trying to > do.) In any > >case, you can always use mutexes to implement > whatever other > >synchronization mechanism you need. > > I wanted that the device can only be opened once, > and holding a mutex while it > is open seemed like a simple idea. (Since > mtx_trylock() will then fail -- easy > to implement.)
An even more simpler idea would be to set a flag in the softc data structure on initialization, so as to avoid initializing again. regards -kamal > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
