John Polstra wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonas Bulow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Polstra wrote:
> Actually I thought about this some more, and I'm not all that sure
> it's possible. I haven't actually _tried_ it, but I think you'd end
> up needing a low-level mutex around parts of the code. That would
> have to be implemented as a spinlock, which is exactly what we're
> trying to avoid in this exercise.
What do you mean with low-level mutex? I mean, how low is low? :-)
After doing some more thinking about the cmpxchgl-lock, it's quite hard
to use it together with a technique involving the kernel. It will be a
contradiction in many ways. I would be nice to have kqueue a EVFILT_MEM
and wait for the contents of a memory adress contain a specific value
(or other condition like threshold, range entrance/leaving). Then it can
be used to wait for the adress used with cmpxchgl. Well, this was just
thinking for this very moment.
>
> > don't know it it's bad design to have rtld.c export
> > lockdflt_init in the same way as dlopen, what di you think?
>
> Right, bad design. :-)
just cheking.. :-)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
