From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 23 03:45:35 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42681EE6 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16D152711 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:45:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (etroy.elischer.org [121.45.232.70]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s5N3jVAk090586 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:45:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <53A7A2D6.30905@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:45:26 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PoC: passive serialization References: <539FEBC1.5030501@FreeBSD.org> <20140621231853.394A914A2D0@mail.netbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20140621231853.394A914A2D0@mail.netbsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 03:45:35 -0000 On 6/22/14, 7:18 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > > Just a note on passive serialization in NetBSD: there is a lot of space for > optimisations, simplifications or improvements to that code, but it was a > deliberate choice to avoid them. The goal was to carefully implement the > logic described in the expired patent (or at least attempt to be as close as > our interpretation skills allow us to be). Any deviation from that logic > increases the risk of falling under some other technique, primarily RCU, > covered by other patent. > hopefully the recent ruling on software patents may make the whole thing moot given enough impetus.