On Fri Nov 12 2010 at 16:58:18 +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > What Johnny apparently suggests is to revisit mutex(9) interface, which > is known to work very well, and optimise it for VAX. Well, I hope we > do not design MI code to be focused on VAX. If we do, then perhaps I > picked the wrong project to join.. :)
He is suggesting to revisit the implementation. It doesn't take much thinking to figure out you don't have to use kern_rwlock.c on vax, just provide the interface. It's really really unlikely the *interface* will change, so it's not much code updating to worry about either. (incidentally, rump kernels have take this approach for, what, 3 years now because the kernel implementation of mutex/rwlock uses primitives which are not in line with the goals of rump, namely to virtualize without stacking multiple unnecessary implementations of the same abstraction)
