From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 12 07:01:04 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1453C16A41B;
	Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:01:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6A643D48;
	Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:01:03 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69F0170E0;
	Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:01:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:59:16 +0100."
	<20060612075515.C26634@fledge.watson.org> 
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:01:01 +0000
Message-ID: <34009.1150095661@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: FILEDESC_LOCK() implementation 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:01:04 -0000

In message <20060612075515.C26634@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes:

>What we probably want is an sx_init_interlock() that allows us to provide the 
>interlock for an sx lock, wich some variations on sx_*lock() to say we already 
>hold the interlock. 

Sounds overly complicated to use.

Why not just a sx_xlockfast() sx_xunlockfast() ? for some value of "fast" ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.