Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:09:54 -0800 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Randell Jesup <rjesup@wgate.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: await/asleep removal imminent Message-ID: <20010117100954.S61852@canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <20010117092109.O7240@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 09:21:09AM -0800 References: <200101171138.MAA11834@freebsd.dk> <ybug0iixiee.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> <20010117092109.O7240@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-current trimmed] On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 09:21:09AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > 3) no one uses it! :) > > 4) most anything you need asleep for could probably be done with > mutex/cv's. > > I'm not going to axe it for a few days, this is a really amazing > API that Matt added, the problem is utility and useage over code > complexity. I support its removal. I would argue that not only _could_ most uses of asleep instead use mutexes and condition variables, but they _should_. The fact that asleep()/await() aren't used to any significant degree, along with the fact that there are other ways to accomplish the same thing, means that we have an easy opportunity to reduce the complexity of our kernel by removing unused code. At the time that Matt wrote the code, it made sense, and if we hadn't gone the direction of using BSD/OS's SMP architecture, it probably would have been used quite a bit. Jason 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?20010117100954.S61852>