Re: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()

From: Grant Grundler <iod00d_at_hp.com>
Date: 2006-03-30 06:11:32
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:33:57AM -0800, Boehm, Hans wrote:
...
> - At user level, the ordering semantics required for something like
> pthread_mutex_lock() are unfortunately unclear.  If you try to interpret
> the current standard, you arrive at the conclusion that
> pthread_mutex_lock() basically needs a full barrier, though
> pthread_mutex_unlock() doesn't.  (See
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2005/HPL-2005-217.html .)

Was the talk you presented at the May 2005 Gelato meeting in Cupertino
based on an earlier version of this paper?

That was a very good presentation that exposed the deficiencies
in the programming models and languages.  If the slides and/or
a recording are available, that might be helpful here too.

thanks,
grant
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Mar 30 06:11:47 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-30 06:11:56 EST