Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 16:25:07 +0530
> From: "Pranav Peshwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Doubts about PICKUP_GIANT() and mtx_lock(&Giant).
> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello,
> What is
On 1/15/06, Tiffany Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does FreeBSD support rwlocks?
>
> On 1/13/06, prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 1/13/06, Kamal R. Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Priority need not
On 1/13/06, Kamal R. Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Priority need not be propagated to readers as they will not block other
> readers.
> Most likely, you only need to propagate to the writer to avoid priority
> inversron.
>
> regards
> -kamal
>
>
&
Hi hackers,
I have a question about how priority propagation works on
read/write lock.On locks that have only one owner at a determinate
moment,we can simply propagate the priority to the owner of lock,but
read/write lock may have many owners at some time,so how can we know
who are the owners?
Hi hackers,
I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
give the lock to the first thread waiting on the turnstile.And a
thread gets the mutex after he returned from turnstile_wait so he
can simply jump out the _
On 1/1/06, ari edelkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you read my post?
> Or are you not on the list? I sent my response directly to the list,
> not including you specifically.
>
> ari
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [...]
> > In my opinion,struct ether_addr is defined both in
> > and libne
On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
> > Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:55:38 +0800
> > From: prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > Reply-To: prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
On 12/31/05, Gilbert Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I find that I can't include when I programming
> > with libnet,because $(CC) complains that "struct ether_addr redefined".
> > But I need some definitions in ,struct ether_header etc.
> > Currently,I just copy the definitions I need f
Hi hackers,
I find that I can't include when I programming
with libnet,because $(CC) complains that "struct ether_addr redefined".
But I need some definitions in ,struct ether_header etc.
Currently,I just copy the definitions I need from ,but
it seems very ugly.Any one has some good ideas?
T
On 12/18/05, rookie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi hackers,
> > I want to understand the current implementation of
> > turnstile,and meet some questions about its locks' logicality.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> It's used to lock td_contested member of struct thread structure and all
> issues linked to it
Hi hackers,
I want to understand the current implementation of
turnstile,and meet some questions about its locks' logicality.
turnstile's ``ts_blocked" field is protected by both
``td_contested" lock and its turnstile_chain lock, but
I think its turnstile_chain lock is enough,because we
allways ge
hi hackers,
I want to use turnstile to implement sx_lock( or read/write lock),but
find that there is a big obstacle,
ONE sx_lock needs TWO queues to put waiters on,one for readers and the
other one for writers,but ONE turnstile can only supply ONE queue,and ONE
sx_lock can only get ONE turnstile.
On 12/14/05, Joel Dahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 22:44 +0800, prime wrote:
> > hi hackers,
> >
> > Are there anybody are interested in project "Usable lock implementation
> with
> > SX-semantics"(http://www.freebsd.org/p
hi hackers,
Are there anybody are interested in project "Usable lock implementation with
SX-semantics"(http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-sxsemantics)?
Can we discuss it here? if so,share you ideas please.
or anywhere else ? please tell me,thanks.
--
Three passions, simple but overwhelming
and more information about the panic,it said:
panic:vm_fault: fault on nofault entry, addr: c72d400
--
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life:
the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for
the suffering of mankind.
Hi all,
When I install 6.0-BETA2 on qemu,it PANICs.I don't know whether it is
qemu's bug or 6.0-BETA2's.Here is output of "trace":
Tracing pid 26 tid 100026 td 0xc1740300
kdb_enter(c0856274) at kdb_enter+0x2b
panic(c0870f1a,c72d4000,407ea84d,1,0) at panic+0x127
vm_fault(c146,c72d4000,2,0,c1740
thanks for all your responses.I know that it is just conditional
compiling construct,but I just can't understand the nested *test* of
SPARSE_MAPPING( the 2nd "#ifdef ..." is nested in the 1st one).
Thanks .I think I get it now.
On Monday 02 May 2005 13:35, gerarra at tin.it wrote:
>> >There is a
There is a "#ifdef SPARSE_MAPPING" at line 701,and again a "#ifdef
SPARSE_MAPPING" at line 713.I just can't understand the second
one.Does it have any special mean ?
thanks .
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/l
18 matches
Mail list logo
