From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Dec 26 22: 0:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DBD37B416 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 22:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20011227060010.XFMN20122.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org> for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 06:00:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA85663 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:40:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 21:40:58 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: the condvar stuff. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ok, so, I[ve looked at the code, I've read teh man pages. I've looked at soem usages.. Why do we need the condvar stuff? it seems very similar to the existing msleep code. Now we have: msleep mutexes, condvars sx locks (on the way out) lockmanager I'm not sure I see what you can achieve with convars that you can't achieve with msleep(). However it's unlikely that someone would have gone to so much trouble for no reason, so I'm missing something.. Are they only implimented as a building block for sx locks? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message