I'm working on fixing ZFS locking, and I ran into a diference between
NetBSD's and Solaris's interpretation of condvars.
In Solaris, it seems to be kosher to do
cv_broadcast(cv);
cv_destroy(cv);
at least if waiters use only cv_wait and not cv_wait_sig c. That
idiom makes NetBSD very
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 09:37:09 +0200
From: Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de
In the zfs code, where do they store the mutex needed for cv_wait?
In the two cases I have come across, dirent locks and range locks, a
number of condvars, one per dirent or one per range, share a common
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:04:53 +0100
From: David Laight da...@l8s.co.uk
Hmmm IIRC solaris kernel cv_init() is actually a malloc, so cv_destroy()
is a free() - and thus mandatory.
OTOH doesn't NetBSD's cv_init() just initialise the memory, making
cv_destroy() not strictly
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:27:48 +
From: Taylor R Campbell campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net
In the two cases I have come across, dirent locks and range locks, a
number of condvars, one per dirent or one per range, share a common
mutex in some common enclosing object, such as
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 07:20:02AM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
I'm working on fixing ZFS locking, and I ran into a diference between
NetBSD's and Solaris's interpretation of condvars.
In Solaris, it seems to be kosher to do
cv_broadcast(cv);
cv_destroy(cv);
at least
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 02:27:48PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 09:37:09 +0200
From: Martin Husemann mar...@duskware.de
In the zfs code, where do they store the mutex needed for cv_wait?
In the two cases I have come across, dirent locks and range locks, a
