Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:44:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@wantadilla.lemis.com>, Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>, Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>, Joerg Micheel <joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz>, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@pike.osd.bsdi.com>, Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mutexes and semaphores (was: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/sys random.h src/sys/dev/randomdev hash.c hash.h harvest.c randomdev.c yarrow.c yarro) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0009241742260.506-100000@bird.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <200009242053.e8OKrJx29096@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Maybe a whinge rather than an ASSERT in the mutex code would be more > appropriate. I've had recursive mutex panics in Solaris, and it > meant I was doing something wrong. A panic was a bit harsh, but it > still led me to note that I was misusing the kstat stuff and made me > fix my code - something I wouldn't have done if it wasn't pointed out > for me. Sure. And when we the network stack and CAM and the VFS layer are re-thought out to know how to deal with reentrancy, then I'll be happy to have non-recursive locks. You're missing the point. If you're on Solaris, you are making a mistake in your coding if you're recursing. If you're on FreeBSD, then too many things have still to be redesigned to make that claim. -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.21.0009241742260.506-100000>