From owner-freebsd-arch  Sat May 13  9:54: 6 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from sharmas.dhs.org (c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.0.69.165])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E507337B65B
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 May 2000 09:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org)
Received: (from adsharma@localhost)
	by sharmas.dhs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA15921;
	Sat, 13 May 2000 09:53:35 -0700
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:53:35 -0700
From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org>
To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution
Message-ID: <20000513095335.A15911@sharmas.dhs.org>
References: <200005131422.IAA00701@berserker.bsdi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005131540090.47945-200000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005131540090.47945-200000@salmon.nlsystems.com>; from Doug Rabson on Sat, May 13, 2000 at 03:48:08PM +0100
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Would it be a good idea to add SMP locking to the queue now, rather than
later ? I think there should be one per queue and it should be a part
of the queue structure. 

	-Arun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message