From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 24 17:27:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6E016A4CF for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:27:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3B643D5C for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:27:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8OHUgfL027133; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:42 -0700 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id i8OHUglZ027131; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:42 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Waldemar Kornewald Message-ID: <20040924173042.GB6672@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <4152A3E9.8080700@web.de> <20040923181605.GC25699@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <415339A1.6090905@web.de> <20040923211703.GA23574@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <4153B897.9040807@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y7xTucakfITjPcLV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4153B897.9040807@web.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu cc: FreeBSD-net Subject: Re: locking & iovecs X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:27:51 -0000 --Y7xTucakfITjPcLV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:03:03AM +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>You can implement mutexes using semaphores, but semaphores tend to be a > >>>more expensive since they are more expressive them mutexes. > >> > >>Using a benaphore instead would improve speed significantly and as you= =20 > >>only use macros we can easily replace those with our benaphore code, is= =20 > >>that really so simple? Sorry, I cannot believe that. :) > > > >Once GIANT is really gone, it may be nearly that easy. We're a ways > >from that though. >=20 > So, the code is not fully thread-safe yet (we want to drop GIANT)? Then,= =20 > I misunderstood something. Will 5.3 be freed of GIANT? I believe IPv4 is pretty close other then NIC drivers, but IPv6 is largely not done yet. GIANT will definatly not be gone in 5.3. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --Y7xTucakfITjPcLV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBVFnBXY6L6fI4GtQRAkYpAJ9tUPXY78XyFmI/t0YgnNLIDPtcgQCg1rrm 5QXNhImBKljewDgIi9iFE/g= =ErUF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Y7xTucakfITjPcLV--