Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 01:04:35 -0500 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libpthread patch Message-ID: <20030418010435.A6251@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <002f01c3056f$6d9b7840$f001a8c0@davidw2k>; from davidxu@freebsd.org on Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:57:43PM %2B0800 References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304180111270.25495-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <002f01c3056f$6d9b7840$f001a8c0@davidw2k>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> [ Data: 2003-04-18 ] [ Subjecte: Re: libpthread patch ] > > There are a few issues we've got to go over, as well as > > looking closely at any locking order problems. > > > I have ever tried to port some kernel code to userland (e.g > mutex and witness), but now they were left there for > several days without be touched. This seems like overkill, in fact, it is by definition. If you want some primitive private-locks-only mutex tracing/auditing, I've done a bit of that and could give you some hints. Using the casuptr facility introduced by thr may be a good idea, no? It is known to work, and is relatively un-complex? Or am I missing something? -- juli mallett. email: jmallett@freebsd.org; aim: bsdflata; efnet: juli;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030418010435.A6251>