From: Stephen D. <sd...@gm...> - 2006-08-24 19:36:13
|
On 8/24/06, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote: > > This MUST also internally lock, or? You can't have shared access > w/o locking, or? > Is this limits stuff yet another "specialized" thing like this > config, which costed me so much hair pulling? If yes, then we > should avoid using it at any cost! > It does lock internally, and it is specialised. But that's the point -- you can't have a simplistic locking scheme apply to all subsystems. The logctl stuff, for example has *no* locking (for what it currently does), because it doesn't need it. I gave an example of allowing the config to be set/changed only at start up, which is another way of handling locking -- completely forbid it after startup. You could easily imagine more complicated schemes, with reference counting etc. So I think you can't get away from specialisation, unfortunately. |