Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:14:33 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Scott Long <scottl@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 Message-ID: <20060621020909.N56083@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <44987135.1070007@samsco.org> References: <200606202141.k5KLfETG075895@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060621014634.U55744@mp2.macomnet.net> <44987135.1070007@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, 16:05-0600, Scott Long wrote: > 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? As an average user I just want to know what pros and contras for using lock.9 vs all other locking primitivies. It is not clear from our man pages and arch book. Sorry if I'm asking something completely stupid. -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060621020909.N56083>