Subject: Re: Condition variables
To: Eduardo Horvath <email@example.com>
From: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/07/2000 02:12:05
In some email I received from Eduardo Horvath, sie wrote:
> 3) What does this gain us over adding an interlock to tsleep()? I know
> what we lose: now every structure that a process might want to consider
> sleeping on will need at least one `condvar_t'. Each of these
> `condvar_t's needs to be explicitly created and destroyed, which can
> add significantly to code complexity.
This should be no more than an extra `local' variable in the appropriate
file, along with the appropriate calls in _init(), _attach(), _detach(),
etc, functions. Maybe an extra member in structures.
> I suppose this is more of an implementation question. The `cond_*'
> interface is conceptually cleaner from a naming perspective (although I
> prefer to use `cv_*' since that's less typing)
And potentially name-space compatible with Solaris which is nice :)