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 --