Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:45:41 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Eric van Gyzen <vangyzen@FreeBSD.org>, threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libthr shared locks Message-ID: <20160217164541.GM91220@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1602161224250.19440@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20151223172528.GT3625@kib.kiev.ua> <56BE69B8.9020808@FreeBSD.org> <56C24586.9050906@FreeBSD.org> <20160216113222.GY91220@kib.kiev.ua> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1602161224250.19440@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:27:12PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:39:18PM -0600, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > >> My only comment on kern_umtx.c is, why are the permission checks compiled out? > > > > Assume that we changed the ABI of libthr and shared locks do not require > > an offpage. > > How are you coming with that? I thought maybe you were going to think > about making the synch types structs, but not actually changing the > implementation (yet). Are you asking what is the state of the work for changing the libthr ABI by replacing object pointers with inline structures, am I reading the question right ? (Sorry, english is not my native language) I do plan to introduce inlined objects (most likely in the form of libthr2 initially, i.e. cc -D_LIBTHR2 -o file file.c -lthr2). But my plans are to get the existing patch for pshared into the tree for 11.0. After that I wanted to implement robust mutexes, still in the context of the libthr. Then libthr2. Finishing the current patch for 11.0 is the immediate goal, while I did not forget neither abandoned the inline alternative and do plan to work on it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160217164541.GM91220>