Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:54:12 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: need for another mutex type/flag? Message-ID: <29725.1233132852@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:09:21 GMT." <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901272001310.51605@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <alpine.BSF.2.00.0901272001310.51605@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Wats on writes: >Right, but what I'm saying is: if we have a MTX_LEAFNODE flag for mtx_init(9), >it won't work for any code that holds the lock over a call to the mbuf >routines. I am happy with us adding a MTX_LEAFNODE flag and would use it >myself, I just not sure it will work for Netgraph node mutexes. 100% agreement there, the kind of usage I expected for this was the 3-line protected regions that grab a reference count og stick something onto a list etc. Memory allocation and similar would not apply. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?29725.1233132852>