>>>>> Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 16:37 -0700, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> I have to agree with Inaky too. Fundamentally, PI is the same for > the system regardless of if the locks are user or kernel. I still > don't see the difference here. But for other reasons, I feel that > the user lock should be a different structure from the kernel > lock. That's why I mentioned that it would be a good idea if Ingo > modulized the PI portion. So that part would be the same for > both. If he doesn't have the time to do it, I'll do it :-) (Ingo, > all you need to do is ask.) Can you qualify "different" here? I don't mean that they need to be interchangeable, but that they are esentially the same. Obviously the user cannot acces the kernel locks, but kernel locks are *used* to implement user space locks. Back to my example before: in fusyn, a user space lock is a kernel space lock with a wrapper, that provides all that is necessary for doing the fast path and handling user-space specific issues. >> As long as the concept of rwlock allows for it to have multiple >> owners (read locks need to have them), the procedure is mostly the >> same. However, this not being POSIX, nobody (yet) has asked for it. > > I don't think rwlocks work well with PI. You can implement it, but > it's like implementing multiple inheritance for Object Oriented > languages... I have to agree--that's why I don't go further than saying in theory is possible. I would only touch it with a ten foot pole or if someone offered a lot in exchange :] -- Inaky - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/