Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:33:14 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Glenn Gombert <ggombert@imatowns.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SMPng Design (Well, some of it anyways) Message-ID: <XFMail.020228203314.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20020228191531.00da5868@imatowns.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01-Mar-02 Glenn Gombert wrote: > > I would offer just a 'general observation' that there seems to be more > kernel locks/locking structures/mutexes that are required for basic use. If > some sort of simplification to make the code easier to work on and maintain > if fewer locking structures were used and the ground rules for when and > where they were applied we defined in your document. Yes this might require > some 'rework' of locks in general on the front end, but I think it might > make the code that is in -current easier to maintain and enhance in the > future (and certainly easier for new comers to work on as well) .. How do you mean exactly? More locks in that we now have more primitives than before or more locks in that we have more actual locks than before? > Glenn Gombert > ggombert@imatowns.com -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.020228203314.jhb>