Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:56:36 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@pike.osd.bsdi.com>, FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/sys random.h src/sys/dev/randomdev hash.c hash.h harvest.c randomdev.c yarrow.c yarro Message-ID: <200009120556.e8C5ubX72439@grimreaper.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <20000912091705.O19431@wantadilla.lemis.com> ; from Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> "Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:17:05 %2B0930." References: <20000912091705.O19431@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I've been wondering whether we shouldn't associate mutexes with data > structures rather than code. It's possible that it would make it > easier to avoid deadlocks. Thoughts? That was exactly what I did with the 2 mutexes in the /dev/random driver. One mutex protects the entropy-harvesting FIFO, and the other protects the internal state structure during reseeds. M -- Mark Murray Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009120556.e8C5ubX72439>