Stewart Stremler wrote:
But it pretty much comes down to having an atomic comare and set
instruction *somewhere*.
You can actually do locking between asynchronous processes without any
atomic instructions. At least, assuming that (say) reading a memory
address while another CPU is writing it doesn't actually break the write
or read bit patterns that weren't written at all.
I wasn't trying to describe the concept, but rather the syntax I'd
like to see. The concept is pretty old, I should think.
It depends. Does "atomic" block out all other execution? Or does it
block out only other "atomic" blocks, in which case lots of languages
have that and it's pretty much one of the older synchronization
primitives invented.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
His kernel fu is strong.
He studied at the Shao Linux Temple.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
