--cyl6hb1YSGs8e3xM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 09:57:36PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> FreeBSD's mutexes protect data, while NetBSD splusb protects code.
> The fine grain locking that's been introduced into recent NetBSD
> versions might help change this, but it took FreeBSD 5 years to lock
> down the kernel to the point where Giant doesn't cover much these
> days.

I suspect the differences, from the perspective of a driver writer,
need not be so great (even if the underlying mutex and scheduler
implementations differ to a greater extent).  Moreover, I suggest
Making It So would be a worthy goal in itself.

Where does DragonFly fit in this spectrum, as yet a different take on
the model?

> If there's a good way around these issues that I've not seen, I'm all
> ears.

Yeah; I guess the point is that the usb code (with the commonality it
already has) is probably the best and most convenient concrete example
with which to explore exactly this question.

--
Dan.

--cyl6hb1YSGs8e3xM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFGgeboEAVxvV4N66cRAvKCAJ45E9hmNMQrtfo7AGPFWltEREb++ACg40uS
3avfDPWh4fYKoqaqZMreEQM=
=IBfc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--cyl6hb1YSGs8e3xM--