Subject: Re: newlock
To: Hans Petter Selasky <>
From: Jason Thorpe <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/03/2006 14:30:04
On Sep 3, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:

> 1) Try to avoid using function/structure names already defined by by  
> the
> FreeBSD mutex implementation, "man mutex", so that one can put an  
> emulation
> layer on top that emulates FreeBSD mutexes on NetBSD.

The goal is for the NetBSD API to be like the Solaris API.  That was  
my intent when I originally wrote this code.

> 2) Mutexes must allow recursation.

Absolutely NOT.  Recursive mutexes are just plain evil.  The goal is  
to have a BETTER locking API, not have the same warts as the crappy  
one that we currently have.

> 3) Nice if there are some functions that can drop/pickup the  
> recursation
> count.

Not applicable.

> 4) You need to implement mutex_sleep(), like there is "ltsleep" for
> simplelocks. Try to avoid the function name "msleep()".

What's wrong with msleep() as a name?

-- thorpej