Hi,
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:59:56 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox
<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said:
>> immaturity
>> in comparision with ... for example System V - which solved those
>> problems already decades
>> ago.
> SYS5 didnt have modules decades ago. The problem isnt actually that big nor
> an interface issue, its a locking thing in part tickled by our finer grained
> scheduling. It just means figuring out how to put the new locks in as few
> places as possible
This is one place where r/w semaphores might make it a _lot_ easier to
get the locking right in a fairly general manner. Ben's semaphores are
_really_ lean to take, and using scheduler-safe locks will make it much
easier to delegate the locking to the mid-layers instead of forcing
every driver to do it internally.
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST