From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 20 22:05:57 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A8616A47B; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:05:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C3043D45; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:05:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([69.15.205.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k5KM5mOb004885; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:05:54 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44987135.1070007@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:05:41 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Konovalov References: <200606202141.k5KLfETG075895@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060621014634.U55744@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20060621014634.U55744@mp2.macomnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 lock.9 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:05:57 -0000 Maxim Konovalov wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, 21:41-0000, Maxim Konovalov wrote: > > >>maxim 2006-06-20 21:41:14 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> share/man/man9 lock.9 >> Log: >> o Remove LK_REENABLE and LK_NOPAUSE lockinit(9) flags, add LK_NOSHARE. > > > Btw, as I see there are not many consumers of lock.9 infrastructure > comparing to mutex.9, sx.9 etc in our tree. Is it something derecated? > I guess that VFS doesn't count as being important? Scott