Getting rid of the static msleep priority boost

[Robert Watson]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote:

>> Perhaps there are no performance differences, but the cv/mutex primitives 
>> are a nice clean interface that most everyone understands.  If you are 
>> going to write a professional OS from the ground up, I doubt you are going 
>> to have anything as convoluted as msleep() as part of your kernel API/ABI.
>
> One real obstacle to converting all locations to cv_* is the lack of support 
> for anything other than mtx def mutexes in the cv api.  It also just doesn't 
> seem like a good use of developer resources regardless of how you feel about 
> msleep.

I thought condvar was converted in 7.x to accepting a struct lock for 
precisely this reason?  I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that it can't be used 
with spin mutexes, but thought, as a result, that we could now use it with 
other lock types, such as sx locks?

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge