Kernel crash w/o reason
Kamal R. Prasad
kamalpr at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 24 04:52:27 PST 2004
--- Jan Engelhardt <jengelh at linux01.gwdg.de> 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.
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the freebsd-hackers