Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 21:36:50 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Jeff Roberson" <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_mutex.c Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10706051236m2597ad4an6d6ce41965a8d057@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070605121953.V606@10.0.0.1> References: <200706051857.l55IvAYP094328@repoman.freebsd.org> <200706051511.56553.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070605121953.V606@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/6/5, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, John Baldwin wrote: > > > I believe we also should replace thread_lock() and thread_unlock() with > calls to spinlock_enter()/exit() on !SMP and make thread_set_lock() a > no-op for this case. Does that sounds right to everyone? Yes, this sounds fair. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10706051236m2597ad4an6d6ce41965a8d057>