[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Delayed Xaction and LOCK#
- To: Mailing List Recipients <pci-sig-request@znyx.com>
- Subject: FW: Delayed Xaction and LOCK#
- From: <d_schneider@emulex.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 12:52:00 PDT
- Encoding: 18 TEXT
- Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 12:52:00 PDT
- Resent-From: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
- Resent-Message-Id: <"sTP4S1.0.Tt1.LBr8o"@dart>
- Resent-Sender: pci-sig-request@znyx.com
>Subject: Re: Delayed Xaction and LOCK#
> Date: Tuesday, August 27, 1996 9:51AM
> From: "Monish Shah" <monish@mcsy2.fc.hp.com>
> Message-Id: <9608270951.ZM7619@hpfcmss.fc.hp.com>
> optional ... not required...
> use of LOCK# should be avoided if at all possible.
This could be a problem for us software types. The LOCK# signal is
typically used for our mutual exclusion schemes (dining philosophers and all
that). If we can't guarantee LOCK#, especially in a multi-master
environment, what is the recommended way of doing mutual exclusion?
Dave Schneider
Emulex Corp.
‘ œ Œ