Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 17:22:22 +0100 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: #include <sys/lock.h> and <sys/mutex.h> Message-ID: <200304011622.h31GMM4j036254@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:04:49 CDT." <XFMail.20030401110449.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin writes: > >>Do you need the whole sys/lock.h and sys/mutex.h? Can you get by with > >>#including sys/_lock.h and/or sys/_mutex.h in sys/bio.h? And possibly > >>following up by adding the non-underscore variants in the hopefully > >>few places where they are actually needed. > > > > I can probably get away with the _* versions, but I'd prefer to know > > what our plans for this sort of situation actually is... > > The _lock.h and _mutex.h were the plan and are suitable for nesting > in other headers such as sys/bio.h when needed. sys/lock.h and sys/mutex.h > should only be included when you need the actual API's rather than just > the structure definitions. As another argument, I wouldn't mind having > sys/mutex.h and sys/sx.h include sys/lock.h but I'm not sure bde@ would > like that. Aren't we trying to remove sys/lock.h? If so, cant we move its contents elsewhere? M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304011622.h31GMM4j036254>