Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:44:36 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sys/mutex.h sys/lock.h (and other) cleanups. Commit Candidate #2 Message-ID: <200104300643.f3U6hIp31951@gratis.grondar.za> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104301046560.22502-100000@besplex.bde.org> ; from Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:23:08 %2B1000." References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104301046560.22502-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Said Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>: > Actually, the deprecation consists of including <sys/lockmgr.h> instead > of <sys/lock.h> in some headers that only need the former. <sys/lock.h> > is not such a header, but it still includes <sys/lockmgr.h> although this > is more bogus than before. The verbose comment before this include has > been copied to to many places (more than 0). Previously said BDE: > The mess for <sys/lock.h> is much older and messier than for <sys/mutex.h>. > Now, <sys/lock.h> is sort of an extension of <sys/mutex.h>, but most places > that include it are for its (intentional) side effect of including the > old lock interface, <sys/lockmgr.h>. The old lock interface will be going > away, so we shouldn't move the include of <sys/lockmgr.h> to *.c. OTOH, > the entanglement of <sys/lock*.h> makes it difficult to include > <sys/lock.h> in the right places (if any). I think the next step should > be to include <sys/lockmgr.h> instead of <sys/lock.h> in *.h. I'm confused. Does sys/lockmgr.h go into sys/lock.h for its intentional side effects or not? M -- Mark Murray Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104300643.f3U6hIp31951>