From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 6 06:45:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980C416A4CE; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:45:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d162.mplik.ru (relay1.mplik.ru [212.23.64.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92FD643D58; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 06:45:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ngl@ur.ru) Received: from d162.mplik.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A63691A3B6; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:45:29 +0600 (YEKST) Received: from spirit (wall.mplik.ru [195.58.1.141]) by d162.mplik.ru (Postfix) with SMTP id A653091A5CB; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:45:27 +0600 (YEKST) Message-ID: <0e6601c46324$d335afe0$8501a8c0@spirit> From: "ngl" To: "Tim Robbins" References: <0e0401c46312$089eea10$8501a8c0@spirit> <20040706050055.GA63647@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <0e3d01c46316$df50c7a0$8501a8c0@spirit> <20040706054134.GB63647@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:45:27 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0 X-Spam-Status: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.512234, version=0.12.3 X-Sagator-Scanner: 0.4.9-0rc1; drop(clamd()) deliver(BogoFilter()) cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shared/exclusive (rw) locks X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:45:32 -0000 That means, freebsd stable has no spin rwlocks ? Thanks, Nik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Robbins" To: "ngl" Cc: 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 . > > */ > > > > 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.