From owner-freebsd-arch Fri May 19 11: 4:53 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (adsl-63-206-88-224.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.206.88.224]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC5137BDCC; Fri, 19 May 2000 11:04:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09036; Fri, 19 May 2000 11:05:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200005191805.LAA09036@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Doug Rabson Cc: Wes Peters , Mike Smith , Chuck Paterson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: A new api for asynchronous task execution In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 May 2000 09:46:24 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:05:26 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > The only system I've ever worked on that implements them refer to > > them as inversion-safe or inversion-proof semaphores. I've never seen > > another name, including "priority lending", in any literature or > > article on the subject. > > Anyway, whatever we choose to call it, the BSD/OS mutex does have support > for priority lending. Can someon that's familiar with both make a comparison between the BSD/OS mutex and the Solaris 7 'turnstile' mutex implementation? I'm getting the impression that the two are in fact extremely similar... -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message