Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:18:05 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: Andrew Kenneth Milton <akm@mail.theinternet.com.au>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Voodoo3 + XFree4 + DRM - simple_lock ? :-) Message-ID: <3A772F8D.76F3E6C1@elischer.org> References: <20010131045430.R11513@zeus.theinternet.com.au> <20010130131111.F17900@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jason Evans wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:54:30AM +1000, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
> > However, recently simple_lock and friends seem to have disappeared, and the
> > kernel modules make some use of them (although there is still reference
> > to it in machine/smptests.h)
> >
> > It looked like I could replace them with calls to mtx_* stuff
> > Removing the calls to simple_lock etc sure made it run a lot faster though,
> > but, I think I'd rather have the safety.
> >
> > What are the 'new' corresponding structures and calls for simple_lock ?
>
> Mutexes should be used in places where simplelocks were used. With few
> exceptions, sleep mutexes should be used (even though simplelocks were spin
> locks). See mutex(9) for details. Be forewarned that there is work in
> progress to clean up the mutex API that will probably be checked in within
> a week. Transitioning from the current mutex API to the upcoming one will
> be trivial, but it will have to be done if you convert to mutexes in the
> next few days.
where can we see the new spec (or at least a sample)?
>
> Jason
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ julian@elischer.org
( OZ ) World tour 2000-2001
---> X_.---._/
v
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A772F8D.76F3E6C1>