Re: mutexes, locks and so on...

[Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>]

On Fri Nov 12 2010 at 16:58:18 +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> What Johnny apparently suggests is to revisit mutex(9) interface, which
> is known to work very well, and optimise it for VAX.  Well, I hope we
> do not design MI code to be focused on VAX.  If we do, then perhaps I
> picked the wrong project to join.. :)

He is suggesting to revisit the implementation.  It doesn't take much
thinking to figure out you don't have to use kern_rwlock.c on vax, just
provide the interface.  It's really really unlikely the *interface*
will change, so it's not much code updating to worry about either.

(incidentally, rump kernels have take this approach for, what, 3 years
now because the kernel implementation of mutex/rwlock uses primitives
which are not in line with the goals of rump, namely to virtualize without
stacking multiple unnecessary implementations of the same abstraction)