Re: request for review: backport of sx and rwlocks from 7.0 to 6-stable

["Attilio Rao" <attilio_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org>]

2007/8/31, Kris Kennaway <kris_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org>:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Some work here at work was approved for sharing with community so
> > I'm posting it here in hope of a review.
> >
> > We run some pretty good stress testing on our code, so I think it's
> > pretty solid.
> >
> > My only concern is that I've tried my best to preserve kernel source
> > API, but not binary compat though a few simple #defines.
> >
> > I can make binary compat, in albeit a somewhat confusing manner, but
> > that will require some rototilling and weird renaming of calls to
> > the sleepq and turnstile code.  In short, I'd rather not, but I will
> > if you think it's something that should be done.
> >
> > There's also a few placeholders for lock profiling which I will
> > very likely be backporting shortly as well.
> >
> > Patch is attached.
> >
> > Comments/questions?
>
> Hmm, I would be happy to see this but I think binary compatibility is
> actually important here since this is -stable and low-level primitives
> like sx are probably used all over the place in existing third party
> modules.

Regarding to this I think that really we could only backport rwlocks
as sxlocks want a new ABI.

I will try to give a look at it ASAP, btw thanks for the effort!

Thanks,
Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
_______________________________________________
freebsd-smp_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"