Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:22:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, julian@whistle.com, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: high-efficiency SMP locks - submission for review Message-ID: <199906280722.AAA18055@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199906280513.WAA48515@sigma.veritas.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:i want to chime in and agree with this statement. i work on a commercial
:filesytem for (among other platforms) solaris; and i'd have to say that of
:the platforms i have been exposed to, solaris' kernel synch primitives are
:very comfortable to use. the function of an "rwlock" is immediately
:understood by anybody who understands reader-writer locks. mutex, condition
:variables, etc are all very accessible ideas. for this reason i think it's
:counterproductive to use opaque names such as "qlock". it's the same reason
:i have an issue with "lockmgr".
:
:i'm happy to see activity in this area!
:aaron
Well, I thought I was being specific in my naming... I don't have
a qlock() function. I do have a qlock_rd() and a qlock_wr() function,
as well as other flavors. qlock_try_rd(), qlock_spin_rd(), and so
forth. But I'm not absolutely set in my naming - just as long as it
isn't an all encompassing lockmgr() call, as you said :-)
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?199906280722.AAA18055>