From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun 12 15:43:52 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F55A16A41B;
	Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:43:51 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:43:41 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <34009.1150095661@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <34009.1150095661@critter.freebsd.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200606122343.42246.davidxu@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>,
	current@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject: Re: FILEDESC_LOCK() implementation
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:43:52 -0000

On Monday 12 June 2006 15:01, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20060612075515.C26634@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes:
> >What we probably want is an sx_init_interlock() that allows us to provide
> > the interlock for an sx lock, wich some variations on sx_*lock() to say
> > we already hold the interlock.
>
> Sounds overly complicated to use.
>
> Why not just a sx_xlockfast() sx_xunlockfast() ? for some value of "fast" ?

I thought it is a rwlock, but it is not in fact, a bit disappointing.