Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 08:15:22 -0700 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reference count invariants in a fine-grained threaded environment Message-ID: <200011061515.IAA55682@berserker.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:03:35 %2B1100." <20001105220335.B307@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Grr, my mistake, should be mutex.
Chuck
----- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:03:35 +1100
From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Subject: Re: Reference count invariants in a fine-grained threaded environment
cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>,
Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org
On Tuesday, 31 October 2000 at 15:20:32 -0700, Chuck Paterson wrote:
(yes, I'm behind on my mail)
>>
>> However it's impossible to stick a mutex into a 'uint'.
>>
>
> I agree that we really want to have atomic types. However
> you are making the assumption that there is a one to one mapping
> between atomic variables and mutice when they are implemented as
> mutexs.
OK, now you've lost me completely. I had already come to accept the
use of the word "mutex" as a specific term for our locking constructs,
and "mutexes" for the plural, with the possible variants "mutexs" and
"mutices", but now I'm completely confused. What's the difference
between the terms "mutice" and "mutexs"?
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
----- End Included Message -----
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011061515.IAA55682>