Re: dev_lock() question

2005-09-30 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday 29 September 2005 03:36 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: > >On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:14 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: > >> >Actually, you would think that it could be init

Re: dev_lock() question

2005-09-29 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: >On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:14 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: >> >Actually, you would think that it could be initialized either via an early >> >SYSINIT() or in the init_mutexes() functi

Re: dev_lock() question

2005-09-29 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday 29 September 2005 02:14 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: > >Actually, you would think that it could be initialized either via an early > >SYSINIT() or in the init_mutexes() function in kern_mutex.c and thus not > > need the early check

Re: dev_lock() question

2005-09-29 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Baldwin writes: >Actually, you would think that it could be initialized either via an early >SYSINIT() or in the init_mutexes() function in kern_mutex.c and thus not need >the early check and avoid penalizing dev_lock(). > >phk, how early his dev_lock needed

Re: dev_lock() question

2005-09-29 Thread John Baldwin
On Thursday 29 September 2005 01:04 pm, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:55:38PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > dev_lock() looks this way: > > > > void > > dev_lock(void) > > { > > if (!mtx_initialized(&devmtx)) > > mtx_init(&devmtx, "cdev", NULL, MTX

Re: dev_lock() question

2005-09-29 Thread Stanislav Sedov
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:55:38PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > Hi, > > dev_lock() looks this way: > > void > dev_lock(void) > { > if (!mtx_initialized(&devmtx)) > mtx_init(&devmtx, "cdev", NULL, MTX_DEF); > mtx_lock(&devmtx); > } > > I wonder why is the mtx_initialize

dev_lock() question

2005-09-29 Thread Divacky Roman
Hi, dev_lock() looks this way: void dev_lock(void) { if (!mtx_initialized(&devmtx)) mtx_init(&devmtx, "cdev", NULL, MTX_DEF); mtx_lock(&devmtx); } I wonder why is the mtx_initialized checking necessary? shouldnt explicit initialization be sufficient? thnx for ans