Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>