On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:34:45PM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:26:05PM +0100, zvrba@globalnet.hr wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: RIPEMD160
> > 
> > Bottom line: disregarding portability, would it be beneficial to use
> > waitfree data structures in the kernel instead of explicit locks (on
> > architectures that properly and efficiently support DCAS)? Or most of
> > such structures are logically tied to some other resource so locks are
> > needed anyway (as someone has already pointed out)?
> 
> I haven't yet read the papers. However I see two issues here. First is the 
> patent one, and I suspect it's a killer.

What exactly is patented?

	-is