Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 02:12:47 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_sysent.c sysv_msg.c sysv_s Message-ID: <20010831021247.M81307@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010830235743.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 11:57:43PM -0700 References: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0108302309010.75391-100000@niwun.pair.com> <XFMail.010830235743.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [010831 02:00] wrote: > > Not really. spl's didn't stay across sleep's either. The only data 4.x locks > across a sleep is via lockmgr(). You do the same now with sx locks. Mutexes > are more replacements for spl() type functionality, except that spl's only > protected against interrupts, and were more coarsely grained. You're aware of this, but just to clarify, you were also implicitly protected from non-interrupt threads by the mutual exclusion, however this is no longer the case, multiple threads may be in the kernel at the same time, and you better be prepared for your footing to disappear out from under you unless you use some sort of lock. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010831021247.M81307>