From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 17 5:24:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F8F37B416; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:24:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from dialup-209.245.142.3.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([209.245.142.3] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1655SC-0004ee-00; Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:24:16 -0800 Message-ID: <3BF6652F.FC50C99A@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 05:25:03 -0800 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: John Baldwin , Peter Wemm , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Need review - patch for socket locking and ref counting References: <200111170300.fAH30dv75857@apollo.backplane.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I've thought about it a bit and I've come to the conclusion that > we should *not* have multiple mutex pools. It's pretty obvious even under casual thought that the deadlock avoidance can't work correctly in theis scenario, so you MUST limit yourself to last acquisition. By the same token, it does not make sense to permit recursion on such mutexes. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message