Re: New manpage: locking(9)

[Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost>]

On 19.06.2015 01:06, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Great to have this.
> 
> I've attached a diff file with some minor wording/grammar changes.
> 

Thank you.

When I will make progress in my research I will drop for review new version.

I will add notes about the halves anyway, as I can learn from it in the
Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System book. The same
term was used in the continuation for FreeBSD (from 2003) and the 2nd
FreeBSD edition from 2014/2015.

I see no reason to capitulate and drop the original naming, refreshed
for the current kernel design in favor of some invented linuxism.

I will write more information about contexts and interrupt handling.

> WRT to the table of "applicability", I'm not sure I like having it say
> 
>     mutex(9)        yes         depends       depends
> 
> Can we maybe specify the dependency?  Perhaps
> 
>     mutex(9)        yes         ???           spin-mutex only
> 
> 

Right, I will make it more clear.

I can rename softirq and hardirq to full names, as these shortcuts
aren't used on NetBSD, what do you think?