From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jan 30 13:31:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DB9C737B6A8 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:31:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 42487 invoked by uid 1142); 30 Jan 2001 21:31:18 -0000 Date: 30 Jan 2001 13:31:18 -0800 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:31:11 -0800 From: Jason Evans To: Julian Elischer Cc: Andrew Kenneth Milton , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Voodoo3 + XFree4 + DRM - simple_lock ? :-) Message-ID: <20010130133111.G17900@canonware.com> References: <20010131045430.R11513@zeus.theinternet.com.au> <20010130131111.F17900@canonware.com> <3A772F8D.76F3E6C1@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3A772F8D.76F3E6C1@elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:18:05PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 01:18:05PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > Jason Evans wrote: > > > > 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)? This is the most recent patch. I expect that the final result will be pretty similar, though Bosko may still change a couple of details: http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mutex_cleanup-5.patch Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message