From owner-freebsd-arch Sat May 13 10:52: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F7B37B7CE for ; Sat, 13 May 2000 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from nlsys.demon.co.uk ([158.152.125.33] helo=herring.nlsystems.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12qg54-0003R8-0Y; Sat, 13 May 2000 18:52:02 +0100 Received: from salmon.nlsystems.com (salmon.nlsystems.com [10.0.0.3]) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA38676; Sat, 13 May 2000 18:56:11 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 18:56:37 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: Arun Sharma Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution In-Reply-To: <20000513095335.A15911@sharmas.dhs.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 13 May 2000, Arun Sharma wrote: > 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. I agree that the queue should have a mutex to protect itself. Since we haven't finalised the api for mutex locking (we will almost certainly use the BSD/OS one), I can't add anything yet but I will when the new SMP work starts. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 20 8442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message