Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Scott Long wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Norbert Koch wrote:
The functions await() and asleep() in kern_synch.c
are marked as EXPERIMENTAL/UNTESTED.
Is this comment still valid? Does anyone have used
those functions successfully? Should I better not
use them in my device driver code for RELENG_4?
How do I correctly cancel a request (as I should do
according to the man page): "asleep (NULL, 0, NULL, 0)"?
The await family was removed in 5.x and beyond, so trying to
use them in 4.x will make your driver very unportable. There
are better ways than await to handle delayed events.
Well, there's tsleep() and wakeup() for FreeBSD < 5.0. Other
than that, what else can you do? These functions are deprecated
in 5.x and 6.x in favor of condvar(9) and mutex(9), so you should
really use those instead of tsleep() and wakeup().
It seems the kernel in -current is still using tsleep() and
wakeup() in some places. I thought we got rid of all these...
???? Can you explain why tsleep and wakeup should no longer be
used? I wasn't aware that they were formally deprecated.
My mistake then. I thought they were deprecated when mutex and
CVs were introduced. There is no need for them except for compatability,
Incorrect. A mutex is not a replacement for sleep. CV's and semaphores
implement some of what tsleep does, but tsleep is absolutely appropriate
when you want to sleep for an event (like disk i/o completing) and don't
need to worry about mutexes. Not every inch of the kernel needs to be
covered by mutexes, Giant or otherwise.
and the priority argument of tsleep() doesn't have any meaning
any longer, right?
I thought it did, but John can give the definitive answer.
Scott
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
