From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 2 11:20: 7 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from cornelius.home.wwwi.com (adsl-63-199-171-171.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.199.171.171]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB0937B65D for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from polonius.wwwi.com (adsl-63-199-171-174.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.199.171.174]) by cornelius.home.wwwi.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f12JJlu05108; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:19:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010202110620.0220cb98@pop.wwwi.com> X-Sender: jdw_list@cornelius.home.wwwi.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:20:10 -0800 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: "Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse" Subject: POSIX mutexes on FreeBSD Cc: jdw_list@wwwi.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, While porting a project from Solaris to FreeBSD 4.2, I found out that the existing FreeBSD implementation of POSIX mutexes doesn't support sharing mutexes between processes. In order to get around this, I eventually did my own implementation of mutexes that works within the uthread framework and supports the PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED attribute. I can see that there are a lot of changes coming down the road in -current that could potentially affect this area. However, I don't have a good feel for how far it is to a future including kernel-based synchronization objects being available to user processes. If there is interest out there, and if it makes sense architecturally, I could do the work necessary to integrate my changes into the uthread code and submit it. Would that be of enough value/interest to be worth doing? Thanks, Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message