Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:00:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mutexes and semaphores Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000927163448.26328A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200009271909.MAA07294@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, John Polstra wrote: > In article > <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000926065812.26612A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, Daniel > Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote: > > > If you absolutley need recursive mutexes, then roll your own and > > keep the base mutex simple. This is trivial to do and makes the > > base mutex more efficient without the need to check for recursive > > ownership. > > I think it would make sense to make recursive mutexes a separate > type, so they don't complicate the non-recursive ones. But the "roll > your own" idea would work against eventually getting rid of recursive > mutexes entirely. If they are implemented ad hoc in various places, > it will be hard to find them all later. Better to have a standard > implementation that's easy to search for. I'll agree to this; I've suggested it before. But I'd like to go one step further and not make them part of our official API. State that they are subject to change/removal, perhaps complain loudly when compiled with -DKLD_API (-DKLD_MODULE ?) or something. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.1000927163448.26328A-100000>