Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 12:31:07 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mutexes and semaphores Message-ID: <20000927123107.A9141@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200009271909.MAA07294@vashon.polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:01PM -0700 References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000926065812.26612A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200009271909.MAA07294@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> [000927 12:09] wrote: > In article > <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000926065812.26612A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, Daniel > Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > > > If you absolutley need recursive mutexes, then roll your own and > > keep the base mutex simple. This is trivial to do and makes the > > base mutex more efficient without the need to check for recursive > > ownership. > > I think it would make sense to make recursive mutexes a separate > type, so they don't complicate the non-recursive ones. But the "roll > your own" idea would work against eventually getting rid of recursive > mutexes entirely. If they are implemented ad hoc in various places, > it will be hard to find them all later. Better to have a standard > implementation that's easy to search for. As I said earlier, when you find some code that really needs one in order to make a subsystem you're working on mpsafe we'll have a short discussion to make sure it's really needed and if it is, then we'll do it. Right now there's no point in this discussion. > > I'm not too thrilled with the API myself. I think you should begin to use it before hating it, I didn't like it at first, but it's certainly usable. -Alfred 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?20000927123107.A9141>