tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ

On 18 Nov, 2014, at 22:13 , Masao Uebayashi <> wrote:
> In the TAILQ case, where readers iterate a list by TAILQ_FOREACH(),
> TAILQ_REMOVE() is safely used as the update operation, because:
> - Readers only see tqe_next in TAILQ_FOREACH(), and
> - Pointer assignment (done in TAILQ_REMOVE()) is atomic.
> If this is correct, pserialize(9) should be updated to be clearer;
> probably this TAILQ example is worth being added there.

I don't think TAILQ is a good example for this.  While TAILQ_REMOVE()
will work, none of the TAILQ_INSERT_*() macros can be reliably used
with concurrent readers so it isn't clear how the list you are
removing stuff from could have been built.

Also, the TAILQ macros depend on a type pun fairly similar to the one
that did in the CIRCLEQ macros and hence have a lifetime which extends
only to some future version of the compiler smart enough to recognize
that and miscompile them.  I think new code, and new man page text,
should probably avoid using the macros to keep from making the eventual
problem with them bigger than it already is.

Dennis Ferguson

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index