On Sep 4, 2006, at 1:34 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:

> If you don't support it I will just make a wrapper for it:
>
> struct mtx {
>    kmutex_t  mtx_data;
>    u_int16_t mtx_recurse;
>    u_int16_t mtx_unused;
> };
>
> void
> mtx_lock(struct mtx *p_mtx)
> {
>  if (mutex_held(&(p_mtx->mtx_data)) {
>   p_mtx->mtx_recurse ++;
>  } else {
>   mutex_enter(&(p_mtx->mtx_data));
>  }
>  return;
> }

That's fine ... if you need it, then you make a wrapper around it.  I  
think that's pretty much what I said to do :-)

> FreeBSD is already using that name. Nice if you can pick another  
> name for it.
> That makes porting code easier.

I suppose we could call it mtsleep() (to make it more like ltsleep()).

That said, I don't see why we should adjust our API names because of  
decision that another BSD made.

-- thorpej