On 03-Jul-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Julian Elischer writes: > > > > > > However, it does seem a bit silly, as we end up dropping > > > and-reaquiring the sched lock quite a few times: > > > > That's why I just asked you to test the concept.. > > If I know that just aquiring it here is ok, > > (I presume you tried doing some work like this) > > that tells me that this code isn't called from some odd place, > > with the sched lock already set. > > > > (that and code inspection of course..) > > > > Now we know it works we can try optimise it.. > > > > I'm going home now for dinner, > > so if you feel like checking this or something mor optimal in, > > be my guest :-) > > OK, I've checked in the unoptimized fix. Please do optimize it when > you get a chance.
Erm, I thought I changd signotify() to require sched_lock and made the second half of psignal() (the whole case statement) lock sched_lock. Did you change that? (To Julian) -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
