--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline

Salut,

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:19:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> To a cursory examination, it looks like it's possible that a number of
> syscalls that touch only process state (particularly read-only ones
> like getcwd, getpid, etc. but also some that change state, like
> chdir, chroot, and a few others) could easily take subsystem locks
> instead of the giant lock.

I had been looking at it, it may also be possible to lock the process
only instead of the whole subsystem, ideally with rwlocks.

				Tonnerre

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCpdegXUVlAbfmNMIRAkb3AKCWSqiD+TaFKr5zVggr6amv+nC8AQCgwoFT
3xGEFnGoslilwJBRDKs87+c=
=hN+l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--