Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:19:19 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: julian@elischer.org Cc: nate@root.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_proc.c Message-ID: <20040609.121919.18287197.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091101160.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <56935.1086803930@critter.freebsd.dk> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091101160.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091101160.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> writes:
:
:
: On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
:
: > In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406091051580.57882-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, Ju
: > lian Elischer writes:
: >
: > >As I've said before and will continue to say..
: > >"We need a more formal model of dealing with reference counts"
: > >
: > >i.e.
: > >
: > >we should get a set of reference counting primatives and make it WELL
: > >DOCUMENTED as to how they should be used..
: >
: > And as others have replied: It is seldom worth it from code clarity
: > or performance wise.
:
: few have replied in that way..
: most have agreed that it is worth persuing..
We should document how to do refcounting. Either from a atomic point
of view (which has issues) or from the mutex point of view (which also
has issues).
I think that everyone agrees on that.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040609.121919.18287197.imp>