Subject: Re: newlock
To: None <ad@NetBSD.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 09/04/2006 08:47:38
> The assumptions were that we would be dealing with two or more locks, with the
> same SPL, and that the acquire and release would be done locally. That's not
> general enough though. So, following your suggestion, something like this:
> .. find b ..
> mutex_link(b, mutex_exit_linked(a));
> .. update b ..
> This is a part of the design I'm not comfortable with, and I think the above
> is quite ugly. What do people think?
what's wrong with using plain old splxxx() where out-of-order operation is
really necessary? i don't think it's often.