Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:13:22 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: smp@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: request for review: backport of sx and rwlocks from 7.0 to 6-stable Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10708310213o297512e8m86e4bb5eb029bf9b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46D7D711.80406@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070831071048.GF87451@elvis.mu.org> <46D7D711.80406@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/8/31, Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > Some work here at work was approved for sharing with community so > > I'm posting it here in hope of a review. > > > > We run some pretty good stress testing on our code, so I think it's > > pretty solid. > > > > My only concern is that I've tried my best to preserve kernel source > > API, but not binary compat though a few simple #defines. > > > > I can make binary compat, in albeit a somewhat confusing manner, but > > that will require some rototilling and weird renaming of calls to > > the sleepq and turnstile code. In short, I'd rather not, but I will > > if you think it's something that should be done. > > > > There's also a few placeholders for lock profiling which I will > > very likely be backporting shortly as well. > > > > Patch is attached. > > > > Comments/questions? > > Hmm, I would be happy to see this but I think binary compatibility is > actually important here since this is -stable and low-level primitives > like sx are probably used all over the place in existing third party > modules. Regarding to this I think that really we could only backport rwlocks as sxlocks want a new ABI. I will try to give a look at it ASAP, btw thanks for the effort! Thanks, 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?3bbf2fe10708310213o297512e8m86e4bb5eb029bf9b>