Apple

Michael-

Thanks so much for the reply.

You answered my main question now you raise a new question for me.

If I want to protect code critical regions, is there a different method I should be using instead of lck_mtx_lock, or do I have to worry about each and every data object that I am processing?

I guess in retrospect I could some direction where to read up on the 10.4 locking design. If anyone knows where I could find this document and or some examples I would appreciate it.

Carl

From: Michael Smith
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:36 PM
Cc: email@hidden
Subject: Re: Thread locks in 10.3

On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Carl Smith wrote:

I have a network kernel extension I am using in 10.3. I also have the same extension in 10.4 which is working fine. I have some several threads going from the Application side that call into the kernel so in 10.4 I lock the portions I am calling using lck_mtx_lock in the extension.

My question is, for 10.3 is thread_funnel_set the same as the lck_mtx_lock call in 10.4? And am I approaching the locking of an extension call the correct way using lck_mtx_lock in 10.4 and thread_funnel_set in 10.3?

The suspicion I would have from the way you've worded the above is that you are using a mutex in the same fashion as the old funnel; to guard code critical regions.

The locking design in 10.4 emphasises protection of data objects, not codepaths; this means that the strict answer to your first question is no, the two are not necessarily analagous.

To answer your second question, yes, those are the right calls to be making, but you should be using them in entirely different ways.

HTH

= Mike