Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:51:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:51:35 -0500 Received: from ns-inetext.inet.com ([199.171.211.140]:38532 "EHLO ns-inetext.inet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:51:28 -0500 Message-ID: <3A3F7C7C.988458AF@inet.com> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:19:24 -0600 From: Eli Carter Organization: Inet Technologies, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rusty Russell CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: generic sleeping locks? In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rusty Russell wrote: > > In message <3A3E98E9.F68BC13A@inet.com> you write: > > Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > > Are there blocking lock primitives already defined somewhere in the > > > > kernel? > > > > > > down and up are normally appropriate for this > > > > Ungh. Forest. Trees. *sigh* Sorry for the dumb question. > > Thanks for the reply Alan. :) > > > > Ok, second part of the question: What about blocking read/write locks > > (with _interruptible variants)? > > Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking* > > Rusty. > -- > Hacking time. Perhaps I should have specified that I'm working with 2.2.xy.... I'll d/l a 2.4.0-test and look at the docbook in that. Thanks for the pointer. Eli --------------------. "To the systems programmer, users and applications Eli Carter | serve only to provide a test load." eli.carter@inet.com `---------------------------------- (random fortune) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/