Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:50:13 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005271148030.73457-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200005251700.LAA25373@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 May 2000, Chuck Paterson wrote: > } > } Lets use subroutines during development at least, it will make > } things easier. I don't think anyone can argue with that :-) > } > > Almost.) I certainly think that the actually locking > stuff can be in a function but we really want to wrap the > function in a macro so we can put tracing in. Being able > to look at a trace and see file and line numbers for mutex > locks and unlocks is invaluable. Absolutely. If using functions, it might also be a good idea to wrap with an inline which checks for M_SPIN or M_DEF and calls a different implementation function for each. This might allow a slightly more efficient implementation. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 20 8442 9037 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0005271148030.73457-100000>