Re: Where to initialize certain locks...

* Andrew R. Reiter <[e-mail]> [020401 23:19] wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> 
> :* Andrew R. Reiter <[e-mail]> [020401 22:16] wrote:
> :> 
> :> I've been looking at some global values that are not associated with any
> :> one subsystem, but need a lock at some point in order to guarantee correct
> :> bheavior -- specifically, at the moment, the securelevel value.  I do not
> :> right away see a clean place for the related lock to be initialized... Am
> :> I missing some SYSINIT() (or SYSINIT()s) that are meant for helping to
> :> initialize locks in this type of situation while still
> :> protecting/promoting correct order (to ensure we init prior to a lock
> :> attempt)?  Or is that not a good path to go down?
> :
> :SYSINIT should work provided you run them after the mutex subsystem is
> :setup. :)
> 
> Well, yes :-)  My main concern is that I kind of fear starting to
> encounter a number of these situations as we go along and need to now have
> a number of SYSINITs, each of which only is there to initialize a single
> mutex -- also the issue of where to put the SYSINITs (and the related
> code).  Is this something Im just over thinking about? :-))

Your concern is valid, perhaps a macro that automagically makes
a sysinit to init a mutex?  Sort of like the "SYSCALL_MODULE_HELPER"
stuff, but not as ugly?

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [[e-mail]]
'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
 start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [e-mail]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message