From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Sep 24 11:45:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222FB37B424 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e8OIjWN31096 for ; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:45:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mutexes and semaphores In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:33:23 PDT." <200009241833.LAA00463@vashon.polstra.com> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:45:32 +0200 Message-ID: <31094.969821132@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200009241833.LAA00463@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes: >I disagree that recursive mutexes are bad, and I don't think "sloppy >coding" is the right way to look at them. I would argue that >recursive mutexes allow robust code to be written based solely on >knowledge of the immediately surrounding code, and that is a Good >Thing. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message