From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Sep 8 22:54:23 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74DAD37B42C for ; Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id BAA25707; Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:51:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen To: Jake Burkholder Cc: Alfred Perlstein , smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMPng: catching signals and mutexes. In-Reply-To: <20000908233301.D27EBBA6D@io.yi.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > There seems to be no way to specify that a signal is to interrupt > > > a wait on a mutex, I'm wondering if we should make it possible to > > > do so. > > > > [...] > > > > > I'm not sure I like this at all, shouldn't there be an > > > mtx_enter with some option to return an error if a signal > > > arrives? > > > > IMHO, yes. Solaris has cv_wait_sig() for just that. > > > > Mutexes are meant to serve a different purpose than tsleep or > condition variables. > > The next thing in line is to add a mutex argument to tsleep, > which will be atomicly released and re-acquired upon resume. So how far are we from removing tsleep in favor of cv_wait()/ cv_wait_sig() or similar? Let's get rid of tsleep if at all possible. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message