From owner-freebsd-arch  Sun Sep 24  9:38:16 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 3958A37B424; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bird (bird.feral.com [192.67.166.155])
	by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19290;
	Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:37:30 -0700
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>
Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com
To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@wantadilla.lemis.com>,
	Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>, Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>,
	Joerg Micheel <joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz>,
	Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@pike.osd.bsdi.com>,
	Mark Murray <markm@freebsd.org>, 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: <200009241026.e8OAQVx26206@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0009240936050.8550-100000@bird.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


> I agree - the idea of recursive mutices evil and should go, but the 
> idea of an owner should not.  It's nice to be able to write code that 
> KASSERTs that it already owns a given mutex.

I'm  not sure I agree. Having lived through Solaris hell with recursive mutex
panics, I rather like the BSD/OS approach.

Yes, possibly allows for sloppy coding. If you get rid of this, though, you
can extend the switchover and pain for SMP at least a year.

-matt




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