Ed Maste wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:38:40AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
Ed Maste wrote:
Ahh, it seems ups' commit of rmlocks changed the "You have: sx_lock,
You want: Slp_mtx" case from no to ok (in r173444).
Ignore me.. I was reading the table backwards.. of course if you have
an sx you can still take out a mutex, but not visa versa.
Yep, and ups' r173444 change didn't affect this at all, it just
corrected the table.
If I don't hear otherwise I'll merge the changes to the table to 7
sometime soon:
You have: You want: Spin_mtx Slp_mtx sx_lock rw_lock sleep
- SPIN mutex ok no no no no-3
+ SPIN mutex ok-1 no no no no-3
Sleep mutex ok ok-1 no ok no-3
- sx_lock ok no ok-2 no ok-4
+ sx_lock ok ok ok-2 ok ok-4
rw_lock ok ok no ok-2 no-3
Have SPIN / want SPIN adds the "Recursion is defined per lock" footnote.
Have sx / want Slp & have sx / want rw change from no to ok.
I agree
- Ed
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
