Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:45:27 +0600 From: "ngl" <ngl@ur.ru> To: "Tim Robbins" <tjr@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shared/exclusive (rw) locks Message-ID: <0e6601c46324$d335afe0$8501a8c0@spirit> References: <0e0401c46312$089eea10$8501a8c0@spirit> <20040706050055.GA63647@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <0e3d01c46316$df50c7a0$8501a8c0@spirit> <20040706054134.GB63647@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That means, freebsd stable has no spin rwlocks ? Thanks, Nik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Robbins" <tjr@freebsd.org> To: "ngl" <ngl@ur.ru> Cc: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Shared/exclusive (rw) locks > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:05:35AM +0600, ngl wrote: > > Thanks > > > > I've found it too. > > > > But > > /* > > * The general lock structure. Provides for multiple shared locks, > > * upgrading from shared to exclusive, and sleeping until the lock > > * can be gained. The simple locks are defined in <machine/param.h>. > > */ > > > > What means sleeping ? I need spinlock. > > I cannot allow to fall asleep to kernel thread. > > You'll need to use simplelocks or spls then, as appropriate to the > situation. > > > Tim > > P.S.: This probably isn't the right mailing list for this discussion.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0e6601c46324$d335afe0$8501a8c0>