Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 23:15:09 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: svn commit: r208332 - in head/sys: amd64/include i386/include Message-ID: <20100523230410.K17698@delplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <11069.1274618175@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <11069.1274618175@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 May 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20100523183502.C13588@delplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >> On Thu, 20 May 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> <machine/atomic.h> should be kernel-only. > > No, it absolutely should not, if anything, it should be pushed as > international standards (with <sys/endian.h>, and <sys/queue.h>). > > Atomic operations and write barriers are necessary when multiple > threads or processes cooperate using shared memory. and if anything > the bug is that POSIX has not updated pthreads to have these and > other necessary primitives. (pthread_mutex_assert_held() for instance). Pehraps, but <machine/atomic.h> was only designed, implemented and documented for use in the kernel. And of course any standardized version won't look like the FreeBSD kernel one. The kernel one is too bloated for me, but a general-purpose one should be even more bloated so as to support all types and more than atomic ops. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100523230410.K17698>