Re: About lock-less data structure patches

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Huang Ying (ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 09:48 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * huang ying (huang.ying.caritas@xxxxxxxxx) 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/