Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:34:53 -0400 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: all mutexes -> read-write locks? Message-ID: <m2k5h7hmua.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <48439D06.6020408@elischer.org> References: <483EE7D5.5050408@elischer.org> <20080601215759.GN64397@hoeg.nl> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0806020048510.1533@sea.ntplx.net> <4843808A.2060501@elischer.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0806020111340.1533@sea.ntplx.net> <48439D06.6020408@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:11:02 -0700, julian wrote: > > Daniel Eischen wrote: > > I'd rather not. What do you have against them? > > People use them without thinking about whether they need to be so > strict. This is an age old problem that removing mutexes will never fix. We could add documentation to the manual pages though saying, "Do you really really need this?" > > Their API is simple enough to use. If there is code that really > > wants to have multiple readers, by all means change it to use > > rwlocks. > > > yes but we have a lot of code that uses mutexes.. changing it would > allow a slow transition to using rw locks. We will likely have to do that ourselves. Sorry, but this is a Sisyphean task, and removing mutexes will not prevent the rock from falling back upon us again. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2k5h7hmua.wl%gnn>