lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: About lock-less data structure patches
* Huang Ying (ying.huang@intel.com) wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 09:48 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * huang ying (huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com) wrote:
> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. I will change the comments, adding these semantics explanation.
> >>>> The user should be warned :)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that makes sense. After this generalization step, if you're ok with
> >>> this, we could aim at moving the implementation from a stack to a queue
> >>> and provide fifo semantic rather than lifo, so that other users (e.g.
> >>> call_rcu in the kernel) can start benefiting from it.
> >>
> >> I think that is good to move from stack to queue.
> >>
> >> I will send out changed lock-less data structure patchset soon. And
> >> we can continue to work on the new lock-less queue at the same time.
> >
> > Sounds like a very good plan! Thanks!
>
> Maybe you can send out your lock-less queue patches, so we can work on that.

Yep, let's wait until your implementation is finalized and merged, and
then ping me again so I can cook up a RFC patch turning llist into a
queue, if it's OK with you.

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> Best Regards,
> Huang Ying

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-07 22:35    [W:0.080 / U:0.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site