Re: Modules loading modules?

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:

> > Well, folks, here is a first pass recursive locks!  The attached diffs
> > are against -current as of a few minutes ago.
>
> Oh, heh, I thought we have recursive lock support.  But with that gone
> from the vfs locks, I guess not (apart from the kernel lock ;).

:)


> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to change the size of kmutex_t.  I guess
> plenty of data structures have carefully been adjusted by hand to its
> size and I don't know of any automatic way to recalculate that stuff.
>
> Even if not, since this is the only user and we probably won't have
> that many of them even in the future, why not just define a new type
> ``rmutex'' which contains a kmutex, an owner and the counter?  It feels
> wrong to punish all the normal kmutex users for just one use.  It'll also
> make the implementation a lot simpler to test, since it's purely MI.
>
> "separate normal case and worst case"

Good point, and it will be a lot less work, too!  :)  And it solves the 
problem of not permitting a rmutex being used with condvars.

One question:  Since an adaptive kmutex_t already includes an owner 
field, would we really need to have another copy of it in the rmutex_t 
structure?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:       |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com    |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer |                          | pgoyette at netbsd.org  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------