Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:00:23 -0000 From: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org>, Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, darrenr@FreeBSD.org, bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net, "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>