Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:21:48 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>, current@FreeBSD.org, net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: new zero copy sockets patches available Message-ID: <XFMail.20020518192148.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3CE6DD8C.FC95386F@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18-May-2002 Terry Lambert wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: >> > God, it's annoying that a statically declared mutex is not >> > defacto initialized. >> >> Is it in solaris? > > It isn't in FreeBSD because of the need to link mutex'es into > the "witness protection program". 8-). Actually, there is more to it than that. Or at least, there will be when turnstiles are added (turnstiles require some function callouts to work properly). > MUTEX_DECLARE(mutex_name). Umm, yes, like MTX_SYSINIT(). :) > You could do this with a SYSINIT(), as has been suggested, but > that would add a relatively large per mutex overhead for each > one you want to declare, since you'd basically be repeating the > common components for doing the job for each and every mutex, > instead of sharing them. Umm, this is a boot-up thing so it's not that big of a deal, plus the actual code isn't duplicated, we call a common function for the actual mutex initialization. > Technically, some later programmer could come along and recover > the linker set memory, actually, since it's only used once, for > the traversal, at kernel startup. Erm, they could do the same with the little mtx_args structs if they want to as well, but I think it's more effor than its worth. > -- Terry -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020518192148.jhb>