Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:46:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Subject: Re: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_sysent.c sysv_msg.c sysv_s Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0108311040450.63418-100000@niwun.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010830235743.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > That does need some clarification. I'm working on a paper for BSDCon that > details locking for this stuff. When its done it will be in the developer's > handbook as well. When will this paper be done, roughly? > 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. AH! Ok, the rules make much more sense now. Hm, the sx locks don't seem to be on the mutex man page - can this be documented by someone familiar with their syntax? Mike "Silby" Silbersack 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?Pine.BSF.4.30.0108311040450.63418-100000>