From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Dec 29 07:44:25 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 680)
	id D33E716A4CF; Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:44:25 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:44:25 +0000
From: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20041229074425.GA87078@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <20041226165927.GA18879@hub.freebsd.org>
	<41D0D580.7090207@freebsd.org> <20041228051838.GB38011@hub.freebsd.org>
	<200412281045.37563.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200412281045.37563.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org>
cc: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: darrenr@FreeBSD.org
cc: bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net
cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/ipfilter/netinet ip_auth.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:44:26 -0000

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:45:37AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> sx locks are not identical to Solaris rwlocks.  Solaris rwlocks do priority 
> propagation and can't be held across a condition variable type sleep.  sx 
> locks on the other hand are more like lockmgr() style locks in that they do 
> not do priority propagation and may be held across a sleep (and are even 
> implemented using mutexes and condition variables for that matter).  I do 
> plan to implement Solaris-style rwlocks that do priority propagation, etc. 
> and are not sleepable but have not done so yet.  Until that time, you will 
> have to use mutexes as those are the only locks FreeBSD supports that have 
> the semantics you want.

Thanks for the clarification and as you guessed, my reference is rwlocks
on Solaris.  I look forward to the day when you manage to complete this
work, as do many other freebsd users & developers, I'm sure!

Cheers,
Darren