From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Sep 24 17:44:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7372F37B424; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bird (bird.feral.com [192.67.166.155]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01181; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:44:17 -0700 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:44:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Brian Somers Cc: Greg Lehey , Chuck Paterson , Archie Cobbs , Joerg Micheel , Frank Mayhar , John Baldwin , Mark Murray , FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Mutexes and semaphores (was: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/sys random.h src/sys/dev/randomdev hash.c hash.h harvest.c randomdev.c yarrow.c yarro) In-Reply-To: <200009242053.e8OKrJx29096@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > Maybe a whinge rather than an ASSERT in the mutex code would be more > appropriate. I've had recursive mutex panics in Solaris, and it > meant I was doing something wrong. A panic was a bit harsh, but it > still led me to note that I was misusing the kstat stuff and made me > fix my code - something I wouldn't have done if it wasn't pointed out > for me. Sure. And when we the network stack and CAM and the VFS layer are re-thought out to know how to deal with reentrancy, then I'll be happy to have non-recursive locks. You're missing the point. If you're on Solaris, you are making a mistake in your coding if you're recursing. If you're on FreeBSD, then too many things have still to be redesigned to make that claim. -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message