Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:44:25 +0000
From:      Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/ipfilter/netinet ip_auth.c
Message-ID:  <20041229074425.GA87078@hub.freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200412281045.37563.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20041226165927.GA18879@hub.freebsd.org> <41D0D580.7090207@freebsd.org> <20041228051838.GB38011@hub.freebsd.org> <200412281045.37563.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:45:37AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> sx locks are not identical to Solaris rwlocks.  Solaris rwlocks do priority 
> propagation and can't be held across a condition variable type sleep.  sx 
> locks on the other hand are more like lockmgr() style locks in that they do 
> not do priority propagation and may be held across a sleep (and are even 
> implemented using mutexes and condition variables for that matter).  I do 
> plan to implement Solaris-style rwlocks that do priority propagation, etc. 
> and are not sleepable but have not done so yet.  Until that time, you will 
> have to use mutexes as those are the only locks FreeBSD supports that have 
> the semantics you want.

Thanks for the clarification and as you guessed, my reference is rwlocks
on Solaris.  I look forward to the day when you manage to complete this
work, as do many other freebsd users & developers, I'm sure!

Cheers,
Darren



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041229074425.GA87078>