From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 8 18:38:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F0437B401 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:37:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f192bqf20394; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:37:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:37:52 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Bernd Walter Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: atomic_ question Message-ID: <20010208183752.F26076@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010208182106.B80741@cicely5.cicely.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010208182106.B80741@cicely5.cicely.de>; from ticso@cicely5.cicely.de on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:21:07PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Bernd Walter [010208 09:21] wrote: > Are atomic_* implementations allowed to spin/sleep? > The question is because some platforms don't have atomic operations > for adding and so on (e.g. sparcv8). Actually, you can use atomic_* on sparc, but you're limited to 24 bits. > The only way to implement them on these platforms is to use a lock. > Now I'm wonder if the use of a sleep mutex is allowed or is a simple > spinning lock the sensefull choice. Either one would work. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message