Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:59:25 -0700 (PDT) From: David Xu <bsddiy@yahoo.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "hackers@FreeBSD.ORG " <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, "audit@FreeBSD.ORG" <audit@FreeBSD.ORG>, Alexander Litvin <archer@whichever.org>, Andriy Gapon <agapon@excite.com> Subject: Re: Thread-safe resolver [patches for review] Message-ID: <20020812235925.98910.qmail@web20908.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> No. I don't think any of the _r functions are needed, so long
> as the results are not cached by pointer instead of a copy,
> before passing them from one thread to another. It's a risk on
> the clobber case of a call with a cached reference outstanding
> but not processed by another thread which is not an issue with
> the _r functions, which require that you pass the storage down.
>
> Of course, if you pass down per thread storage, you could have
> the same problem if you didn't copy rather than reference the
> results before passing to another thread by address.
>
> Given that, per thread allocations ("thread local storage")
> makes more sense than allocate/free fights between threads
> based on who's responsible for owning the memory after an
> inter-thread call. 8-).
>
> -- Terry
localtime() etc. are candidate to make them use per thread
storage.
David Xu
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020812235925.98910.qmail>