Ah, there's the rub. Silly me.
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Mayoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:38 PM
To: Sean Owen
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: nsv vs. ns_cache vs. ns_share
+---------- On Sep 10, Sean Owen said:
> This is true, but is atomicity really required? If you don't mind the
memory
> being taken up for a few extra cycles, it seems to me that if you point
the
> API at the new version of the hash table, you can poll the reference count
> for the old version once a second until it is zero, and then safely free
the
> memory. What's a little busywaiting among friends?
What if two readers try to decrement the reference count
simultaneously? One of the decrements will be missed and you'll never
stop polling.
