Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 23:59:48 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mtx_lock_recurse/mtx_unlock_recurse functions (proof-of-concept). Message-ID: <20040408215948.GM661@darkness.comp.waw.pl> In-Reply-To: <29212.1081460407@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20040408213647.GL661@darkness.comp.waw.pl> <29212.1081460407@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--s8J8qjRpxLkp1Gun Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:40:07PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: +> >As was discussed, it will be helpful to have functions, that are able +> >to acquire lock recursively, even if lock itself isn't recursable. +>=20 +> Sounds evil to me... Why? I don't think that better is to just use MTX_RECURSE if we don't need it in 90% of cases. And sometimes it is really hard to pass information if lock is held or not, just like for that rwatson's kqueue thing. +> Does your patch also make witness aware of this ? Nope, it is just a proof-of-concept and as jhb@ pointed out, we want to keep our interface simple, so it probably will never reach the tree. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.FreeBSD.org pjd@FreeBSD.org http://garage.freebsd.pl FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! --s8J8qjRpxLkp1Gun Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAdctUForvXbEpPzQRArClAKCklcqQo6dXRn9oj0oes8DYHaKsrwCeL3fM COlYy2Qa3ZsI7+jWGksYYFc= =Ada8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --s8J8qjRpxLkp1Gun--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040408215948.GM661>