Kernel crash w/o reason

[Kamal R. Prasad]

--- 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.

regards
-kamal

> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
>
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> 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 
http://mail.yahoo.com