Yes, this is what I was thinking of. I recall there being type defs for appropriate atomic types. If that is still the recommended approach, please update your patch appropriately.
The most important thing, however, is ensuring that the semantics are preserved. That is, was the use of the values also protected by the lock? Does moving to atomic updates introduce a possible inconsistency? I haven't looked at the code. Before this is checked in, however, someone should. Thanks, Neal
