> From: "Theo de Raadt"
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:23:27 -0700
>
> Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> > Ted Unangst wrote:
> > >
> > > Does 0x come from ACPI? Can we give that a name?
> > >
> > > I thought sleeping for one tick is kinda weird, but I see what
> > > it's doing with the acpi_dotask loo
> From: "Ted Unangst"
> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 19:01:09 -0500
>
> Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Index: dev/acpi/dsdt.c
> > ===
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/dsdt.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.243
> > diff -u -p -r1.243 dsdt.c
> > --
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Ted Unangst wrote:
> >
> > Does 0x come from ACPI? Can we give that a name?
> >
> > I thought sleeping for one tick is kinda weird, but I see what it's doing
> > with
> > the acpi_dotask loop. This feels precarious, but whatever.
>
> So upon further thought, this is p
Ted Unangst wrote:
>
> Does 0x come from ACPI? Can we give that a name?
>
> I thought sleeping for one tick is kinda weird, but I see what it's doing with
> the acpi_dotask loop. This feels precarious, but whatever.
So upon further thought, this is pretty bad. If the new task also calls sem
Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Index: dev/acpi/dsdt.c
> ===
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/dsdt.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.243
> diff -u -p -r1.243 dsdt.c
> --- dev/acpi/dsdt.c 19 Aug 2018 08:23:47 - 1.243
> +++ dev/acpi/dsdt.c
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 18:02:27 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:46:37 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Mark Kettenis
> >
> > I have a Shuttle NC02U "nano" PC that ends up with the the acpi0
> > kernel thread blocked on the "acpievt" wait channel. I tracked this
> > down
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:46:37 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mark Kettenis
>
> I have a Shuttle NC02U "nano" PC that ends up with the the acpi0
> kernel thread blocked on the "acpievt" wait channel. I tracked this
> down to an incorrect implementation of the Signal() and Wait()
> operations.
>
> This c
I have a Shuttle NC02U "nano" PC that ends up with the the acpi0
kernel thread blocked on the "acpievt" wait channel. I tracked this
down to an incorrect implementation of the Signal() and Wait()
operations.
This changes the implementation to be a proper semaphore. It also
releases the acpi inte
