From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Venkatesh Srinivas <me@acm.jhu.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:40:12 -0400
Message-ID: <f75780241003271740t4f0dad99i13c1497b26bcf474@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636d3499ed670f80482d1a49c
Subject: [9fans] Semaphores for libc Lock?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f5f979ae-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

--001636d3499ed670f80482d1a49c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

In Russ Cox's and Sape Mullender's 2008 IWP9 paper on semaphores in Plan 9,
they suggest that semaphore (semacquire/semrelease)-based locks in libc were
better than the current spinning ones; they note that the locks would be
replaced in the distribution soon.

Is that still in the cards?

-- vs

--001636d3499ed670f80482d1a49c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,<div><br></div><div>In Russ Cox&#39;s and Sape Mullender&#39;s 2008 IWP9=
 paper on semaphores in Plan 9, they suggest that semaphore (semacquire/sem=
release)-based locks in libc were better than the current spinning ones; th=
ey note that the locks would be replaced in the distribution soon.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Is that still in the cards?</div><div><br clear=3D"all"=
>-- vs<br>
</div>

--001636d3499ed670f80482d1a49c--