2007/11/26, Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071125 10:05] wrote:
not sure why sx-locks exist at all, as they seem to be a variant of sleep.
I think it's just a convenience function set to allow one to implement a
sleep-derived synchronisation.
You are
2007/11/26, Attilio Rao [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
Maybe we should have a clearer documentation on how using netbus
methods and what locking should be in their regards?
s/netbus/newbus
:)
Attilio
--
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Daniel Eischen wrote:
Spin and blocking mutexes should in my opinion be defined as different
structures, at least in name so that the compiler hits you with a clue-bat
when you try use a spin-lock with non-spinlock ops etc.
That seems nice, but doesn't go along well
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Do we need both?
Well, we need something but it could be that the naming was unfortunate.
I think there's a strong argument to be made that we should try and align the
rmlock and rwlock primitives in API and data structures, if it doesn't
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
It is convenient to share the APIs so
that it is easy to change the mtx_init() from a default to a spin
type without changing the rest of the code. We really
Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf files
sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c
sys/sys lock.h pcpu.h smp.h
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf files
sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c sys/sys
lock.h pcpu.h
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf files sys/kern
subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf files
sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c
* Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [071125 10:05] wrote:
not sure why sx-locks exist at all, as they seem to be a variant of sleep.
I think it's just a convenience function set to allow one to implement
a sleep-derived synchronisation.
You are correct, sx locks are a faster replacement for
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf files
sys/kern
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9
sys/conf files
sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c
sys/sys lock.h pcpu.h smp.h
Added files:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9
sys/conf files
sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c
sys/sys lock.h pcpu.h smp.h
Added files:
share/man/man9
On Thursday 08 November 2007, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
share/man/man9 locking.9
sys/conf files
sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c
sys/sys lock.h
16 matches
Mail list logo
