From owner-freebsd-arch Thu May 18 8:46:24 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from obie.softweyr.com (obie.softweyr.com [204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE74937B5F5 for ; Thu, 18 May 2000 08:46:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (homer.softweyr.com [204.68.178.39]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA16109; Thu, 18 May 2000 09:46:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <392410CB.6B86AA@softweyr.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:48:27 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Rabson Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Doug Rabson wrote: > > The BSD/OS mutex code includes a compile-time-selected debugging feature > which automatically detects locking hierarchy violations. Anyway, using a > mutex here doesn't add to locking complexity since the mutex would be > exited before calling the task's callback and re-entered after. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide an inversion-proof semaphore? Or is that what they're doing? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message