Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>