Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:40:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: nate@root.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_proc.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091139460.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040609.121919.18287197.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091101160.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> > Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> writes: > : > : > : On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > : > : > In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091051580.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, Ju > : > lian Elischer writes: > : > > : > >As I've said before and will continue to say.. > : > >"We need a more formal model of dealing with reference counts" > : > > > : > >i.e. > : > > > : > >we should get a set of reference counting primatives and make it WELL > : > >DOCUMENTED as to how they should be used.. > : > > : > And as others have replied: It is seldom worth it from code clarity > : > or performance wise. > : > : few have replied in that way.. > : most have agreed that it is worth persuing.. > > We should document how to do refcounting. Either from a atomic point > of view (which has issues) or from the mutex point of view (which also > has issues). > > I think that everyone agrees on that. > certainly. Documentation of acceptable coding practices is almost as good as having code to do it.. (as long as people can find the document) > Warner >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091139460.57882-100000>