Re: Kernel crash w/o reason

From: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh_at_linux01.gwdg.de)
Date: 12/24/04

  • Next message: Kamal R. Prasad: "Re: Kernel crash w/o reason" 
    Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:13:34 +0100 (MET)

    >> 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.)
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Kamal R. Prasad: "Re: Kernel crash w/o reason"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: stubborn Keylogger !
      ... AumHa for reviewing HJT and Deckard's System Scanner logs. ... that you never gave him - Mr Bear - the apology he demanded from you! ... Regardless, I may no longer post there - at ...
      (microsoft.public.security.virus)
    • Re: FAA definition of a cloud WAS - Re: Kid day at the airport...
      ... >> be restricted from flying in ANY visible moisture, regardless of size ... >> or opacity. ... The instructor told me to bear away from it. ... Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com ...
      (rec.aviation.piloting)
    • Canon XL1s zoom ring problem?
      ... The zoom ring on my used Canon XL1s is very uneven, regardless of how ... Is this a design problem or probably due to wear? ...
      (rec.video.production)