--huq684BweRXVnRxX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:26:05PM +0100, zvrba@globalnet.hr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>=20
> 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=
=20
patent one, and I suspect it's a killer.

Second, I see lock-free structures as an optimization for certain cases=20
(perhaps an excellent one!) of fine-locked access and structures. We are=20
still at big-lock, so it strikes me that we have work to do before we need=
=20
to worry about this. :-|

Take care,

Bill

--huq684BweRXVnRxX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFDvD91Wz+3JHUci9cRAoGXAKCQujKk7rNtJV5cJrDh1hyLL4UhJQCePJWW
/an5j0bMStsaS6AQwTaMWyo=
=JzG1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--huq684BweRXVnRxX--