On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:08:14PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> It's becoming clear that this is something I'm going to need to wade
> into. Much as I've been trying to avoid it. :-/
> 
> There's a (perfectly natural) tendency to try to fix synchronization
> problems by adding states -- extra flags, more locks, moving things to
> the background, etc. -- but in general the way to fix synchronization
> problems so they *stay* fixed is to remove states. For example, from
> what I've seen so far I'm pretty sure XLOCK ought to go away.

That's possible, at last in its current form as it fails to protect
vget().

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--

Reply via email to