On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:38:40AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > >Ed Maste wrote: > >>Ahh, it seems ups' commit of rmlocks changed the "You have: sx_lock, > >>You want: Slp_mtx" case from no to ok (in r173444). > > Ignore me.. I was reading the table backwards.. of course if you have > an sx you can still take out a mutex, but not visa versa.
Yep, and ups' r173444 change didn't affect this at all, it just corrected the table. If I don't hear otherwise I'll merge the changes to the table to 7 sometime soon: You have: You want: Spin_mtx Slp_mtx sx_lock rw_lock sleep - SPIN mutex ok no no no no-3 + SPIN mutex ok-1 no no no no-3 Sleep mutex ok ok-1 no ok no-3 - sx_lock ok no ok-2 no ok-4 + sx_lock ok ok ok-2 ok ok-4 rw_lock ok ok no ok-2 no-3 Have SPIN / want SPIN adds the "Recursion is defined per lock" footnote. Have sx / want Slp & have sx / want rw change from no to ok. - Ed _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
