On Monday 12 June 2006 15:01, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20060612075515.C26634_at_fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes: > >What we probably want is an sx_init_interlock() that allows us to provide > > the interlock for an sx lock, wich some variations on sx_*lock() to say > > we already hold the interlock. > > Sounds overly complicated to use. > > Why not just a sx_xlockfast() sx_xunlockfast() ? for some value of "fast" ? I thought it is a rwlock, but it is not in fact, a bit disappointing.Received on Mon Jun 12 2006 - 13:43:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:57 UTC