Alan Cox has just started passing around some code that starts on the
breakdown of the GKL
I suggest that all intersted parties go to the SMP list
if they wish to take part in this action.
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, David E. Cross wrote:
>
> > I think mutex is the way to go. I am 100% for it, and I think now that this
> > problem is getting a good deal of light we should start to do something about
> > it.
> >
> > One of the problems with locks that doesn't seem to have been mentioned
> > (although I am sure many have thought it) is deadlocks. You get A waiting
> > for B and b with A. With mutexi (plural?) you would lock just the resource
> > that you are curently working on, and you would be guaranteed to release it
> > (if the programmers do it right, of course ;). The advantage is with Mutex
> > is that you don't need to be as omnipotent to use it.
>
> Did you forget the fact that in order to remove a giant lock set up, so
> that you go one step, or multiple steps, below that, the locks below the
> giant lock must ALL be there, no mistakes or omissions allowed.
>
> It's well worth doing, but it's not a deal like adding just one lock, no
> sir!
>
> ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
> Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | communications topic, C programming, and Unix.
> 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 |
> Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic and jaunt, both FreeBSD-current.
> (301) 220-2114 |
> ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
