Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:11:11 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Andrew Kenneth Milton <akm@mail.theinternet.com.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Voodoo3 + XFree4 + DRM - simple_lock ? :-) Message-ID: <20010130131111.F17900@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <20010131045430.R11513@zeus.theinternet.com.au>; from akm@mail.theinternet.com.au on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:54:30AM %2B1000 References: <20010131045430.R11513@zeus.theinternet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:54:30AM +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: > However, recently simple_lock and friends seem to have disappeared, and the > kernel modules make some use of them (although there is still reference > to it in machine/smptests.h) > > It looked like I could replace them with calls to mtx_* stuff > Removing the calls to simple_lock etc sure made it run a lot faster though, > but, I think I'd rather have the safety. > > What are the 'new' corresponding structures and calls for simple_lock ? Mutexes should be used in places where simplelocks were used. With few exceptions, sleep mutexes should be used (even though simplelocks were spin locks). See mutex(9) for details. Be forewarned that there is work in progress to clean up the mutex API that will probably be checked in within a week. Transitioning from the current mutex API to the upcoming one will be trivial, but it will have to be done if you convert to mutexes in the next few days. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010130131111.F17900>