Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:52:43 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: sx_assert() vs. SX_ASSERT_*() Message-ID: <XFMail.011023105243.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anyone object greatly to making a change to the sx(9) API to use an sx_assert()
function similar to mtx_assert() for mutexes instead of having several
SX_ASSERT_FOO macros?
Here is what the new API would look like:
sx_assert(&foo_lock, SX_LOCKED);
sx_assert(&bar_lock, SX_SLOCKED);
vs.
SX_ASSERT_LOCKED(&foo_lock);
SX_ASSERT_SLOCKED(&bar_lock);
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
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?XFMail.011023105243.jhb>