Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:08:47 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Wes =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peters=D4?=?=?iso-8859-1?Q?=40=21=EA?=? <wes@softweyr.com>, bright@hotjobs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: question about re-entrancy. Message-ID: <199901052008.NAA09332@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990105220612.5112X-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> References: <199901051946.MAA09199@mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.990105220612.5112X-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [snip] > > > > The problem with object locks is that it puts > > > objects that don't really need to be in a contention > > > domain into one in order to satisfy contention in what > > > are usually very small critical sections having to do > > > with list manipulation of pointers to the object. > > > > So you're claiming that the 'Big Giant Lock' is the better way? You > > can't have it both ways. > > > > > > > > Nate > > The third way (about which Terry did talk) is to have locks around > critical sections. That *is* what an 'object lock' in RTEMS is. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901052008.NAA09332>