Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:45:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee, nate@mt.sri.com, tlambert@primenet.com, wes@softweyr.com, bright@hotjobs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: question about re-entrancy. Message-ID: <199901052245.PAA24981@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199901052008.NAA09332@mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Jan 5, 99 01:08:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The third way (about which Terry did talk) is to have locks around > > critical sections. > > That *is* what an 'object lock' in RTEMS is. No. An object lock is associated with an object. A critical section lock is associated with a section of code. RTEMS uses real object locks (just like EROS or KeyKOS or ...). See my argument about the relative persistence of objects vs. critical sections. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901052245.PAA24981>