Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:12:28 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, (Mike Smith) <msmith@FreeBSD.org>, (Chuck Paterson) <cp@bsdi.com>, (Alfred Perlstein) <bright@wintelcom.net> Subject: Re: we need atomic_t Message-ID: <XFMail.001013201228.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200010130251.TAA03945@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13-Oct-00 Terry Lambert wrote: >> The reason for atomic_init/destroy is to intialize mutexes if they >> are needed on the arch. Basically atomic64_t on 32bit arches would >> be a struct with a 64bit value and a mutex to protect it. > > Tee hee hee. > > How do I initialize the mutex that protects the mutex? Our mutexes use a pointer for the lock, so they use uintptr_t, not the would-be atomic_t. The reason for an atomic_t really is to provide a cheap way to do MP safe refcounts, etc. w/o having to use mutexes if at all possible. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "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.001013201228.jhb>