[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 09:49:41AM +0000, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> > Hi Victor,
> >
> > Why not implement POSIX 1003.1c fully and have normal mutexes and
> > condition variables. What you propose here is so close to that, it seem
> > strange that you don't implement standard POSIX. Note that the POSIX
> > 1003.1c mutexes and convars are SMP safe. In posix, the normal
> > proceedure is (from Butenhof):
>
> We are going to have condition variables, but I think they are a poor
> solution requiring a multi-step operation where one step would be
> simpler and clearer.
>
> I'm thinking that there must be a better solution: preferrably using
> the POSIX API. Any suggestions?
Hi Victor,
The observation I was making was that the code you proposed using the
plan9 approach was very very similar to the POSIX mutex/condvar stuff.
The mutexes don't really introduce an extra step as they provide the
necessary locking you need on an SMP system. This being the case, it
seems that the 'pure' POSIX approach might work well for everyone (once
we've swallowed the indigestible man pages :-)
Regards, Stuart
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
