Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:30:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG (John Baldwin) Cc: jasone@canonware.com (Jason Evans), arch@FreeBSD.ORG, rjesup@wgate.com (Randell Jesup), bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein) Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: await/asleep removal imminent Message-ID: <200101180330.UAA25782@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010117105509.jhb@FreeBSD.org> from "John Baldwin" at Jan 17, 2001 10:55:09 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, it will be unused if we axe all tsleep's in favor of cv's which does > incur extra overhead, as each cv has to be init'd and destroy'd and carries a > linked list around with it. The extra storage overhead doesn't outweight the > speed increase (from lack of the hash lookup) in all cases I think, so I'm not > sure we want to axe tsleep() just yet. If you axe tsleep() then asleep() can > be emulated by either passing cv's around between functions. I'll ask the same question I asked the POSIX committee about mutex initialization: Why is a non-default initialization required? Why explicitly choose an implementation that doesn't permit static instances to be declared and used, without explicit initialization? What is the freaking problem with "zero" not being a perfectly valid number in this warped philosophy? Pick a "just initialized" state that equals "all zeros". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200101180330.UAA25782>