From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Sep 11 18: 6:34 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 A269F37B42C; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zeppo.feral.com (IDENT:mjacob@zeppo [192.67.166.71])
	by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13068;
	Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:06:18 -0700
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>
Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com
To: Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>
Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>,
	John Baldwin <jhb@pike.osd.bsdi.com>,
	Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: 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: <200009120101.e8C11nN56928@realtime.exit.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009111801490.25916-100000@zeppo.feral.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



> Greg Lehey wrote:
> > I've been wondering whether we shouldn't associate mutexes with data
> > structures rather than code.  It's possible that it would make it
> > easier to avoid deadlocks.  Thoughts?
> 
> Speaking as a BSD/OS (and former Unixware) developer:  YES!

Hmm. I would rather have assumed that this is what mutexes are about.
Semaphores gate entry in code. Mutexes provide locking on data. Simple enough.





To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message