On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46:58 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wr
On Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46:58 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matth
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Sela
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Saturday 06
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think you're misunders
On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
> >>
> >> A
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:30:38PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the patch attached to this e-mail I included Matthew Fleming's patch
> aswell.
>
> 1) I renamed taskqueue_cancel() into taskqueue_stop(), hence that resembles
> the words of the callout and USB API's terminology f
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>>
>> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
>>
>> As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta->ta_pending cannot change,
>> nor can
Hi,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>
> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
>
> As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta->ta_pending cannot change,
> nor can the set of running tasks. So the order of checks is
> irrelevant.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 20:06:12 John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Pe
On Friday 05 November 2010 20:06:12 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > On Friday 05 November 2010
On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
> > > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > >> True, but no taskqueue(9) code
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
> >> prevent a task from becoming enque
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
>> prevent a task from becoming enqueued again. The same issue exists
>> with taskqueue_drain().
>
> I f
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
> prevent a task from becoming enqueued again. The same issue exists
> with taskqueue_drain().
I find that strange, because that means if I queue a task again while it
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 19:13:08 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
>> > On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Bald
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:13:08 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew
Hi,
In the patch attached to this e-mail I included Matthew Fleming's patch
aswell.
1) I renamed taskqueue_cancel() into taskqueue_stop(), hence that resembles
the words of the callout and USB API's terminology for doing the same.
2) I turns out I need to have code in subr_taskqueue.c to be a
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin w
On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fle
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wro
On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> >> I think that if a task is currently executi
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >> I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should be a drain
> >> method for that. I.E
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should be a drain
>> method for that. I.E. two methods: One to stop and one to cancel/drain. Can
>> you implement
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:38 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11
On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:38 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 04 November 201
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
>>
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
> >> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
> >
> > Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a loo
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> For the purpose of speed, I'm not opposed to breaking the KBI by using
> a doubly-linked TAILQ, but I don't think the difference will matter
> all that often (perhaps I'm wrong and some taskqueues have dozens of
> pending tasks?)
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
>> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
>
> Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work and
> re-base my patch.
It's on svn.freebsd.org:
http://s
On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work and
re-base my patch.
--HPS
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:55:09 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> > wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > I've wrapped u
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:55:09 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > I've wrappe
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
>> > the USB process
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 08:39:45 Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 01 November 2010 22:14:49 John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
> > > the U
On Monday 01 November 2010 22:14:49 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
> > the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more
> > direct w
On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
> USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
> that to wrap it.
>
> The limitation of the existing taskqueue
On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
> > the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more
> > direct way
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
> USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
> that to wrap it.
>
> The limitation of the existing taskqueue system is
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
that to wrap it.
The limitation of the existing taskqueue system is that it only guarantees
execution at a given priority level. USB requi
42 matches
Mail list logo
