On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46:58 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wr
On Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46:58 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matth
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Sela
On Monday, November 08, 2010 10:34:33 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Saturday 06
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:47 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think you're misunders
On Saturday, November 06, 2010 4:33:17 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
> >>
> >> A
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:30:38PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the patch attached to this e-mail I included Matthew Fleming's patch
> aswell.
>
> 1) I renamed taskqueue_cancel() into taskqueue_stop(), hence that resembles
> the words of the callout and USB API's terminology f
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>>
>> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
>>
>> As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta->ta_pending cannot change,
>> nor can
Hi,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 14:57:50 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>
> I think you're misunderstanding the existing taskqueue(9) implementation.
>
> As long as TQ_LOCK is held, the state of ta->ta_pending cannot change,
> nor can the set of running tasks. So the order of checks is
> irrelevant.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 20:06:12 John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Pe
On Friday 05 November 2010 20:06:12 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > On Friday 05 November 2010
On Friday, November 05, 2010 3:00:37 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
> > > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > >> True, but no taskqueue(9) code
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:48:05 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
> >> prevent a task from becoming enque
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
>> prevent a task from becoming enqueued again. The same issue exists
>> with taskqueue_drain().
>
> I f
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:39:45 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> True, but no taskqueue(9) code can handle that. Only the caller can
> prevent a task from becoming enqueued again. The same issue exists
> with taskqueue_drain().
I find that strange, because that means if I queue a task again while it
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 19:13:08 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
>> > On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Bald
On Friday 05 November 2010 19:13:08 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew
Hi,
In the patch attached to this e-mail I included Matthew Fleming's patch
aswell.
1) I renamed taskqueue_cancel() into taskqueue_stop(), hence that resembles
the words of the callout and USB API's terminology for doing the same.
2) I turns out I need to have code in subr_taskqueue.c to be a
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin w
On Friday 05 November 2010 18:15:01 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fle
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:18 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wro
On Friday, November 05, 2010 9:50:10 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:58 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> >> I think that if a task is currently executi
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:49:22 pm Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >> I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should be a drain
> >> method for that. I.E
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> I think that if a task is currently executing, then there should be a drain
>> method for that. I.E. two methods: One to stop and one to cancel/drain. Can
>> you implement
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:15:16 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:38 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11
On Thursday 04 November 2010 21:11:38 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 04 November 201
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
>>
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
> >> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
> >
> > Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a loo
On Thursday 04 November 2010 20:01:57 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> For the purpose of speed, I'm not opposed to breaking the KBI by using
> a doubly-linked TAILQ, but I don't think the difference will matter
> all that often (perhaps I'm wrong and some taskqueues have dozens of
> pending tasks?)
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
>> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
>
> Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work and
> re-base my patch.
It's on svn.freebsd.org:
http://s
On Thursday 04 November 2010 15:29:51 John Baldwin wrote:
> (and there is in Jeff's OFED branch)
Is there a link to this branch? I would certainly have a look at his work and
re-base my patch.
--HPS
___
freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list
http://list
On Thursday, November 04, 2010 9:55:09 am Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> > wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > I've wrapped u
On Thursday 04 November 2010 14:55:09 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> > I've wrappe
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
> wrote:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
>> > the USB process
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 08:39:45 Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 01 November 2010 22:14:49 John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
> > > the U
On Monday 01 November 2010 22:14:49 John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
> > the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more
> > direct w
On Monday, November 01, 2010 3:54:59 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
> USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
> that to wrap it.
>
> The limitation of the existing taskqueue
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
> USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
> that to wrap it.
>
> The limitation of the existing taskqueue system is
On Monday 01 November 2010 21:07:29 Matthew Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Hans Petter Selasky
wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate
> > the USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more
> > direct way
Hi!
I've wrapped up an outline patch for what needs to be done to integrate the
USB process framework into the kernel taskqueue system in a more direct way
that to wrap it.
The limitation of the existing taskqueue system is that it only guarantees
execution at a given priority level. USB requi
42 matches
Mail list logo
