Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 20:31:44 +0200 From: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@gmail.com> To: "Garrett Cooper" <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Fredrik Lindberg <fli@shapeshifter.se> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 119527 for review Message-ID: <9bbcef730705091131h35545a99pb5e1f6782c95e2dc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4641F37D.50808@gmail.com> References: <200705082229.l48MTrbh069129@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070509070626.GA41419@freebsd.org> <4641818B.4030507@FreeBSD.org> <20070509103404.D71759@fledge.watson.org> <464199D9.7020908@shapeshifter.se> <9bbcef730705090710h653dc15bjb7a1159484c1c48b@mail.gmail.com> <4641E19F.80809@shapeshifter.se> <4641F37D.50808@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/05/07, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: > It may work with programs under normal conditions but are the queues > guaranteed to work with thread sychronization and other non-simple > conditions? I'd think that the FreeBSD queue is closer to that. No, they don't have any support for thread safety - they are intended to be used with external locks if this is an issue. (at least the FreeBSD ones - haven't tried it on other *BSD implementations). > Furthermore, it's a requirement made by style(9) to use methods that > aren't rolled by the implementor :). +1
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730705091131h35545a99pb5e1f6782c95e2dc>