Hi,

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:41:21PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:

> On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Elad Efrat wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have a few changes that I'm working on that will require some  
> >process
> >flags. Regardless of whether eventually I'll commit them or not, we
> >reached the point where we have only one unused flag slot left in
> >p_flag.
> >
> >At the moment it's 'int', so I'd like to bump it to uint64_t at least.
> >
> >Is this okay? is there anything that is expected to break? I guess
> >sysctl because it uses int32_t, but anything else?
> 
> What do you want to add?  Perhaps it's a good time to evaluate how the  
> flags are grouped and break them up in a logical fashion (facilitates  
> being protected by multiple locks, as well).

I think a good start would be to split p_flag into two fields, one which
contains flags that may be test/set from interrupt context, and one which
does not. The idea being that we may have general spin and sleep mutexes
associated with each struct proc, along with other locks.

Thanks,
Andrew