Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:32:59 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r193030 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/net sys/security/mac sys/sys Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905291332010.80270@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10905290457k7a00616dj43fc67a75d4a12b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <200905291052.n4TAqc5q072775@svn.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10905290457k7a00616dj43fc67a75d4a12b7@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Attilio Rao wrote: >> Make the rmlock(9) interface a bit more like the rwlock(9) interface: >> >> - Add rm_init_flags() and accept extended options only for that variation. >> - Add a flags space specifically for rm_init_flags(), rather than borrowing >> the lock_init() flag space. >> - Define flag RM_RECURSE to use instead of LO_RECURSABLE. >> - Define flag RM_NOWITNESS to allow an rmlock to be exempt from WITNESS >> checking; this wasn't possible previously as rm_init() always passed >> LO_WITNESS when initializing an rmlock's struct lock. >> - Add RM_SYSINIT_FLAGS(). >> - Rename embedded mutex in rmlocks to make it more obvious what it is. >> - Update consumers. >> - Update man page. > > Thanks! There's quite a bit more to be done with rmlocks -- among other things, lock assertion support is quite incomplete, and it needs to integrate with WITNESS better. I probably don't have time to work on this, but perhaps for someone with a bit more experience with our locking primitives it would prove straight forward? :-) Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0905291332010.80270>