Paul Durrant wrote:
On 07/05/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There some things I would like to make sure first: can I use all kernel
functions from a module? In Linux, modules can only use those
functions from
the kernel which are exported by the EXPORT_SYMBOL macro.
I
On 07/05/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There some things I would like to make sure first: can I use all kernel
functions from a module? In Linux, modules can only use those functions from
the kernel which are exported by the EXPORT_SYMBOL macro.
I suppose there is a sim
Hi,
There some things I would like to make sure first: can I use all kernel
functions from a module? In Linux, modules can only use those functions from
the kernel which are exported by the EXPORT_SYMBOL macro.
I suppose there is a similar mechanism for OpenSolaris, isn't there? In that
case: how
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
Hi all,
I will try using the timeout() first, but I am wondering where I
should start the first invocation of my function.
Probably from attach().
-- Garrett
The code I would like to run could be considered to be related to
power management. Is there a ce
Well, it basically is a power management strategy that needs to be able to
use the function cpu_offline() in common/os/cpu.c. I would like this
'module' to be able to load automatically, and work automatically,
stand-alone.
If this is possible from a module, that is fine by me. Is it correct that
Thomas De Schampheleire writes:
> The code I am writing does not really handle a certain device, so I guess a
> device driver is not what I am aiming at.
> A loadable module sounds ok to me.
>
> How do I tell OpenSolaris that this module should be loaded? Is there any
> documentation regarding dev
Paul Durrant wrote:
On 5/2/07, Dana H. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For a non-driver loadable module, you may
initiate the thread as part of the module attach() and shut the thread
down as
part of the module detach().
AFAIK only drivers have attach() and detach() entry points; did you
mean
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
Well, I actually do not know.
The code I am writing does not really handle a certain device, so I
guess a device driver is not what I am aiming at.
A loadable module sounds ok to me.
That's pretty much the choice you have :-) (unless you're changing the
base ke
On 5/2/07, Dana H. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For a non-driver loadable module, you may
initiate the thread as part of the module attach() and shut the thread
down as
part of the module detach().
AFAIK only drivers have attach() and detach() entry points; did you
mean _init() and _fini()?
Well, I actually do not know.
The code I am writing does not really handle a certain device, so I guess a
device driver is not what I am aiming at.
A loadable module sounds ok to me.
How do I tell OpenSolaris that this module should be loaded? Is there any
documentation regarding developing modu
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
Hi all,
I will try using the timeout() first, but I am wondering where I
should start the first invocation of my function.
The code I would like to run could be considered to be related to
power management. Is there a certain file or function from where I
shou
Hi all,
I will try using the timeout() first, but I am wondering where I should
start the first invocation of my function.
The code I would like to run could be considered to be related to power
management. Is there a certain file or function from where I should call my
function? For this start,
>No. timeout() does not block until the background task is completed
>(that would kind of defeat the point) so there's no unfinished
>functions. Self re-scheduling timeouts are quite common. The tricky
>part comes when you want to stop such a thing as you cannot hold a
>lock over untimeout() which
Paul Durrant wrote:
On 4/25/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I would use timeout only to start function A, and within function
A do a
new call to timeout in order to keep it running each period, that
would the
bad thing to do, right? Since then I would leave a trail
On 4/25/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I would use timeout only to start function A, and within function A do a
new call to timeout in order to keep it running each period, that would the
bad thing to do, right? Since then I would leave a trail of unfinished
functions
What you described is basically correct.
-- Garrett
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your replies.
I checked the man pages for both timeout and taskq.
If I would use timeout only to start function A, and within function A
do a new call to timeout in order to keep it running
Hi,
Thanks for your replies.
I checked the man pages for both timeout and taskq.
If I would use timeout only to start function A, and within function A do a
new call to timeout in order to keep it running each period, that would the
bad thing to do, right? Since then I would leave a trail of un
Paul Durrant wrote:
On 4/23/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Have a thread run containing a while loop with a delay inside. This
would
have the disadvantage that the time between the thread's execution is
run is
not always fixed (it would depend on the load of the sys
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
Hi,
I need some kernel code to be executed periodically and I am wondering
what the best way would be to achieve this.
I can imagine the following possibilities:
- Have a thread run containing a while loop with a delay inside. This
would have the disadvantage t
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
Hi,
I need some kernel code to be executed periodically and I am wondering
what the best way would be to achieve this.
I can imagine the following possibilities:
- Have a thread run containing a while loop with a delay inside. This
would have the disadvantage t
On 4/23/07, Thomas De Schampheleire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Have a thread run containing a while loop with a delay inside. This would
have the disadvantage that the time between the thread's execution is run is
not always fixed (it would depend on the load of the system, ...).
To some ex
Hi,
I need some kernel code to be executed periodically and I am wondering what
the best way would be to achieve this.
I can imagine the following possibilities:
- Have a thread run containing a while loop with a delay inside. This would
have the disadvantage that the time between the thread's e
22 matches
Mail list logo
