On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 01:53:32PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Paul!
>
> I know you are currently looking at documentation of urcu data
> structures. I did quite a bit of work in that area these past days. Here
> is my plan:
Actually, I diverted to the atomic operations, given that the stack/queue
API seems to be in flux. ;-)
> 1) I would like to deprecate, at some point, rculfqueue, wfqueue, and
> rculfstack.
>
> 2) For wfqueue, we replace it by wfcqueue, currently in the urcu master
> branch.
>
> 3) For rculfstack, we replace it by lfstack available here (volatile
> branch):
>
> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~compudj/userspace-rcu
> branch: urcu/lfstack
I probably have to document them to have any chance of having an opinion,
other than my usual advice to avoid disrupting users of the old interfaces.
> 4) I did documentation improvements (and implemented pop_all as well as
> empty, and iterators) for wfstack here (volatile branch too):
>
> git://git.dorsal.polymtl.ca/~compudj/userspace-rcu
> branch: urcu/wfstack
I will be very happy to take advantage of this. ;-)
> 5) The last one to look into would be rculfqueue. I'd really like to
> create a lfcqueue derived from wfcqueue if possible. It's the next
> item on my todo list this weekend.
The piece I am missing is ABA avoidance. Or is this the approach
that assumes a single dequeuer?
Thanx, Paul
> Thoughts ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
>
_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
