In message <6A74260B-95A0-4BEE-A230-186D5DFE5102@shagadelic.org>,
Jason Thorpe writes:

>
>On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:38 AM, jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu wrote:
>
>> Oh, one more thing: to suggest using ras(9) is proof-positive that the
>> suggester simply doesn't understand the problem domain.  Bershad's
>> work on restartable atomic sequences, of which ras(9) is a
>> re-implementation, gives atomic semantics to *USERSPACE PROCESSES*,
>> implemented by adding "check for RAS collision during trap-to-OS"
>> hooks and PC-unwind in one (or a very, very small integer number) of
>> codepaths. Thus, RAS is not suitable for use *inside* a kernel.
>
>Actually, it is possible to use RAS inside a kernel, and Solaris does  
>(did) it on some platforms for low-level mutex operations on  
>uniprocessor systems.

Uh,  Jason, I said "not suitable", not "not possible".

I'm not the only one to notice and comment on your tendency to send
off-the-cuff replies which miss the point of what was said.
It's a New Year, maybe you could make a resolution to take the time to
*read* what people write before responding?