Subject: Re: spl checks in simple_lock [was Re: v_interlock/splbio protocol violations]
To: Aymeric Vincent <vincent@labri.fr>
From: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 03/11/2004 10:28:27
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:53:33PM +0100, Aymeric Vincent wrote:
>=20
> The other reason is because it looks bad to me to force a user of the=20
> locking or (worse) pool API to know about SPLs.

Unfortunately for pools and locks that are used in interrupt context, the=
=20
user _does_ need to know about SPL levels. Otherwise bad things happen in=
=20
SMP systems.

Take care,

Bill

--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFAUK/LWz+3JHUci9cRAvxUAJ9i3aOhgoIUCUdj2sOMmtAY+gIICQCfch55
YP6LuwKx4nmeoRGIjNyVja8=
=EfkE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--