From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:33:15 +0200
Subject: [lttng-dev] [URCU PATCH 1/3] wfcqueue: implement
	concurrency-efficient queue
In-Reply-To: <20121008161544.GB30083@Krystal>
References: <20121002141307.GA4057@Krystal> <20121002141444.GB4057@Krystal>
	<5072F57E.4020308@redhat.com> <20121008161544.GB30083@Krystal>
Message-ID: <5073004B.2050400@redhat.com>

Il 08/10/2012 18:15, Mathieu Desnoyers ha scritto:
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> We actually already have those, they are just not described in this
> comment. I will fix this right away. By the way, you will notice the
> wording:
> 
> + * Queue read operations "first" and "next", which are used by
> + * "for_each" iterations, need to be protected against concurrent
> + * "dequeue" and "splice" (for source queue) by the caller.
> 
> Being the only one iterating on a queue with local head/tail after a
> splice operation is one way to provide mutual exclusion. Holding a lock
> is not the only way to achieve mutual exclusion.

Uh, I was confused by the _blocking suffix.  But when used together with
splice you know it is not blocking---only the splice will block.

Paolo