Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:08:27 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "John Baldwin" <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@fxq.nl> Subject: Re: Inner workings of turnstiles and sleepqueues Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10710191008r6dc1939em85f8574e107af48b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200710190842.34286.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20071016094118.GE5411@hoeg.nl> <200710170916.18788.jhb@freebsd.org> <20071019045654.GF5411@hoeg.nl> <200710190842.34286.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/10/19, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>: > On Friday 19 October 2007 12:56:54 am Ed Schouten wrote: > > * John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > The best option right now is to read the code. There are some comments in > > > both the headers and implementation. > > > > Would it be useful to write manpages for these interfaces, or do we > > assume that only godlike people can use them anyway? I am willing to > > write manpages for them. > > They already exist, but they really are only used to implement higher-level > primitives like locks and condition variables. The rest of the kernel should > use the higher-level primitives anyway. Well, really turnstiles don't have manpages, but this is still OK as they are only used in mutex while the "real" sleeping primitive should be identified by sleepqueues. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10710191008r6dc1939em85f8574e107af48b>