Hi!
> > Thomas, is even semaphore neccessary? As I see it, disconnect can only
> > be called when we block, and re-checking pointers after each blocking
> > operation seems easy enough.
>
> This is enough on UP, sure... But don't we need to protect ourselves
> from the disconnect running concurrently on another processor
> in an SMP machine?
Oops, right.
Mathew, it looks like converting current spinlocks to semaphores
should be enough. We may NOT go completely without locking, I was
wrong.
Pavel
--
The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
