From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Oct 12 12:39:50 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 775C937B502; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by smtp02.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28301;
	Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:36:26 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209)
 via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAR6a4f3; Thu Oct 12 12:36:11 2000
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03665;
	Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:39:23 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <200010121939.MAA03665@usr09.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: we need atomic_t
To: cp@bsdi.com (Chuck Paterson)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:39:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein),
	msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith), arch@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <200010121523.JAA16007@berserker.bsdi.com> from "Chuck Paterson" at Oct 12, 2000 09:23:13 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 	It seems to me that the problem with atomic_t is that there
> is no place in MI code where it is safe to use this because it
> doesn't have a guaranteed size. 

Respectfully, relying on something being so large that it "will
never overflow" is asking for trouble.

Instead, the wrap boundary should be protected to allow wrapping,
and we shouldn't give a damn about the size of atomic_t.

The idea that it needs to be a counter in the first place is,
well, pretty silly.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message