On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Paul Coccoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Jack O'Quin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> This is wrong. For the single reader, single writer case, atomic operations >>> are *not* necessary. The bug, as was already pointed out, is due to storing >> >> Let's agree to disagree, then. Single-reader, single-writer does not >> automatically make something SMP safe. There is large body of >> literature on lock-free data structures that agrees with me; someone >> posted a link to a collection of those earlier in the thread. > > Let's not. This is not just a matter of opinion. If you read that > literature, > you will find that the ring buffer *is* safe for the single reader, > single writer > case. In many other SMP situations, atomic operations *are* required, > but not for ring buffers.
The only time you can get away without atomic ops is on uni-processor. Please cite a reference that says otherwise. Notice that all the fixes proposed all involve removing the "+=" and using only assignment. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
