From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 28 23:04:10 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2CB16A403;
	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:04:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from prvs=julian=480af87b9@elischer.org)
Received: from a50.ironport.com (a50.ironport.com [63.251.108.112])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FF343CA0;
	Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:04:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from prvs=julian=480af87b9@elischer.org)
Received: from unknown (HELO [10.251.18.229]) ([10.251.18.229])
	by a50.ironport.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2006 15:04:10 -0800
Message-ID: <456CC069.3040107@elischer.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:04:09 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
References: <7105.1163451221@critter.freebsd.dk>	<200611281631.19224.jhb@freebsd.org>
	<456CBE20.4010902@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <456CBE20.4010902@elischer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: a proposed callout API
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:04:10 -0000

Julian Elischer wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:


> I've mentionned several times that I think making both the spinlock and 
> Mutex code use the same mutex structure is a problem because one cannot 
> do any run-time checking to ensure that the correct call is being used..

s/run-time/compile-time/


> one must instead do runtime checking which is slower and may not hit all 
> unusual cases (except in unusual circumstances).
>