RE: await & asleep

From: Daniel Eischen (deischen_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 07/27/05

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: await & asleep" 
    Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:35:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: Norbert Koch <NKoch@demig.de>

    On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Norbert Koch wrote:

    > > > The functions await() and asleep() in kern_synch.c
    > > > are marked as EXPERIMENTAL/UNTESTED.
    > > > Is this comment still valid? Does anyone have used
    > > > those functions successfully? Should I better not
    > > > use them in my device driver code for RELENG_4?
    > > > How do I correctly cancel a request (as I should do
    > > > according to the man page): "asleep (NULL, 0, NULL, 0)"?
    > >
    > > The await family was removed in 5.x and beyond, so trying to
    > > use them in 4.x will make your driver very unportable. There
    > > are better ways than await to handle delayed events.

    Well, there's tsleep() and wakeup() for FreeBSD < 5.0. Other
    than that, what else can you do? These functions are deprecated
    in 5.x and 6.x in favor of condvar(9) and mutex(9), so you should
    really use those instead of tsleep() and wakeup().

    It seems the kernel in -current is still using tsleep() and
    wakeup() in some places. I thought we got rid of all these... 

    -- 
DE
_______________________________________________
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: Scott Long: "Re: await & asleep"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: await & asleep
      ... > really use those instead of tsleep() and wakeup(). ... Scott ... To unsubscribe, ...
      (freebsd-hackers)
    • Re: await & asleep
      ... On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Scott Long wrote: ... Can you explain why tsleep and wakeup should no longer be ... To unsubscribe, ...
      (freebsd-hackers)