Hi Philip, On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:23:24 -0800, Philip Pokorny <ppokorny at penguincomputing.com> wrote: >>Not at all. > >I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. Not offended, upset at not being able to work out how all this fits together, now that I'm passed the silly errors, learning how people build symbols inside macros and other weird stuff. So, we have yourself and Mark telling me not to worry, but I'm uneasy about the model or mental picture I build to describe what may be. And yes, I don't have evidence yet, but these are areas I'm treating with suspicion, if you like. You ever focus on wrong issues and build wrong model of what is important? That's where I'm at trying to build understanding of a system I don't even have end-user experience with yet. I get to the stage of cherry-picking the best ideas I've seen in the drivers, not one driver has struck me as a model driver. >In addition to the way I know my drivers worked, I believe that all >other drivers have an update_lock semaphore that could be used to >protect read-modify-write's in the same way. But they don't, and I wonder if they should? Of course, I may have missed something... I doubt I'll submit a non-compile-tested patch again, f'instance. :o) Cheers, Grant.
