Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:14:01 -0600 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the condvar stuff. Message-ID: <20011227001401.Y91594@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112262134100.85465-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:40:58PM -0800 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112262134100.85465-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [011227 00:00] wrote: > > 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. They're a lot easier to get right than the flags based approach since you don't have to roll your own. They also specify a specific rendivous so that at a later date we won't need the sched_lock to place processes on the condvar's waiting queue. You use the mutex passed in as the protection over the condvar, this is possible because if you think about it, it makes no sense to use more than one mutex with either a condvar or a set of flags, right? :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductable donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011227001401.Y91594>