Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 02:15:25 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: attilio@freebsd.org, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: request for review: backport of sx and rwlocks from 7.0 to 6-stable Message-ID: <20070901091525.GK87451@elvis.mu.org> 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
* Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> [070831 01:51] wrote: > 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. Ah, yes, sorry, the API stuff is the sleep_queue and turnstile apis, not the sx api itself. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070901091525.GK87451>