Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:02:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@pike.osd.bsdi.com>, Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/sys random.h src/sys/dev/randomdev hash.c hash.h harvest.c randomdev.c yarrow.c yarro Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009111801490.25916-100000@zeppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <200009120101.e8C11nN56928@realtime.exit.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Greg Lehey wrote: > > I've been wondering whether we shouldn't associate mutexes with data > > structures rather than code. It's possible that it would make it > > easier to avoid deadlocks. Thoughts? > > Speaking as a BSD/OS (and former Unixware) developer: YES! Hmm. I would rather have assumed that this is what mutexes are about. Semaphores gate entry in code. Mutexes provide locking on data. Simple enough. 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.LNX.4.21.0009111801490.25916-100000>