Re: possible fix for: PR# 39420 - stopped processes can hold locks

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas) wrote:
> >By the way,
> >
> >-int cv_wait_sig(kcondvar_t *, kmutex_t *);
> >+int cv_wait_sig1(kcondvar_t *, kmutex_t *, const sigset_t *);
> >+#define cv_wait_sig(_cv, _km) cv_wait_sig1((_cv), (_km), NULL)
> >
> >This would break kernel modules, assuming that "backend" function
> >cv_wait_sig1() may change.
> 
> That's why I bumped to .16.

Yes, but we ought to keep such interface stable, since it's a lower level
synchronisation primitive.  That is, cv_wait()/cv_wait_sig() should stay
as functions (even if it would cost additional function-call).

-- 
Mindaugas