PERFORCE change 126330 for review

[Pawel Jakub Dawidek]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:18:41AM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2007/9/13, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd at freebsd.org>:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 03:49:55PM -0700, Kip Macy wrote:
> > > Andrew Thompson explicitly asked for the possibility of shared acquisition.
> >
> > A flag for callout_init_lock() will be enough? Or it wants it to be
> > sometimes acquired shared and sometimes exclusive?
> 
> If it was me I would avoid the 'static' requirement for these stuffs.

Actually I don't see why one would want to call the same handler with
different locked lock. I think a flag for callout_init_lock() should be
enough, exactly in the same way we have CALLOUT_RETURNUNLOCKED - we
don't decide if the handler returns with lock unlock at callout_reset()
time, but at callout_init_mtx() time. The thing is that you know the
handler and you know if it needs to modify shared data or not at init
time. And for the very uncommon cases, you can always downgrade the lock
from within the handler.

All in all, I think a flag for callout_init_lock() is enough. Do you
feel convinced?

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       http://www.wheel.pl
pjd at FreeBSD.org                           http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer                         Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/p4-projects/attachments/20070912/986c02fb/attachment.pgp