--tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:33:07PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:00:58PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> >=20
> > we already have kernel_lock, which is exactly to emulate the existing
> > synchronization semantics.
> > why to bother to waste time to introduce and stabilize
> > another stop-gap hack rather than doing real smp work?
>=20
> But kernel_lock gives you _one_ level of mutual exclusion.  Unless I
> misunderstand -- which is entirely possible -- what Jonathan is proposing
> would give multiple levels.

Probably. One issue left open in Jonathan's initial proposal is if we take=
=20
all lower spl locks too. We would only need to do that if we still have=20
code lying around that assumes spls are hierarchical. They used to be, but=
=20
I believe we have changed all of that so that we now work right in face of=
=20
a bit mask.

Take care,

Bill

--tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCo/IVWz+3JHUci9cRAh4DAJ4/f68CcqFK6PReRFojv7kaV5tMrgCggf1u
zCmhA1QCuYUgY/LuNWtObyI=
=Oaa8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye--