Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:44:19 +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: <20060621024346.E90615@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <449874B5.50909@samsco.org> References: <200606202141.k5KLfETG075895@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060621014634.U55744@mp2.macomnet.net> <44987135.1070007@samsco.org> <20060621020909.N56083@mp2.macomnet.net> <449874B5.50909@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[...] > > > >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. > > > > lockmgr is somewhat analogous to an SX lock. However, due to some > of the special considerations needed by VFS in terms of the vnode > life cycle and blocking for I/O, they aren't completely functionally > equivalent to an SX lock. It would be nice to fix VFS to not need > these special considerations, but that is a very complicated and > risky task. Thanks! -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060621024346.E90615>