Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:32:06 -0400 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |