From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 5 12:09:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29433 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:09:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (sri-gw.MT.net [206.127.105.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29423 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:09:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com) Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA16705; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:08:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com) Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09332; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:08:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 13:08:47 -0700 Message-Id: <199901052008.NAA09332@mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Narvi Cc: Nate Williams , Terry Lambert , Wes =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peters=D4?=?=?iso-8859-1?Q?=40=21=EA?=? , bright@hotjobs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: question about re-entrancy. In-Reply-To: References: <199901051946.MAA09199@mt.sri.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > [snip] > > > > The problem with object locks is that it puts > > > objects that don't really need to be in a contention > > > domain into one in order to satisfy contention in what > > > are usually very small critical sections having to do > > > with list manipulation of pointers to the object. > > > > So you're claiming that the 'Big Giant Lock' is the better way? You > > can't have it both ways. > > > > > > > > Nate > > The third way (about which Terry did talk) is to have locks around > critical sections. That *is* what an 'object lock' in RTEMS is. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message