Hazard pointers are offered by concurrency kit, but can be omitted and in a
normal usage scenario (because everything we use would be leveraged via
inline headers) would never be in trafficserver.
On Mar 8, 2013 3:17 PM, "Brian Geffon" wrote:
> My only concern with concurrencykit is the use of ha
It's 8-byte aligned so it's fine in that case. I'll look at that a bit more
today.
autoreconf -if
doesn't work any differently than just "-i".
Wednesday, March 13, 2013, 1:45:08 AM, you wrote:
> I dont fully understand how this would work in the 8 byte case if memory
> alignment was the issue.
I dont fully understand how this would work in the 8 byte case if memory
alignment was the issue.
Brian
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > Unfortunately this commit breaks my build and executable. FC 18.
> > --enable-debug and --enable-wcc
- Original Message -
> Unfortunately this commit breaks my build and executable. FC 18.
> --enable-debug and --enable-wccp.
>
> Building:
>
> autoreconf -i
Should you `autoreconf -if` ?
> fails.
>
> [amc@yuna ats]$ autoreconf -i
> configure.ac:1115: warning: AC_LANG_CONFTEST: no
On 12/03/2013, at 7:57 PM, Alan M. Carroll wrote:
> Unfortunately this commit breaks my build and executable. FC 18.
> --enable-debug and --enable-wccp.
>
> Building:
>
>autoreconf -i
>
> fails.
>
> [amc@yuna ats]$ autoreconf -i
> configure.ac:1115: warning: AC_LANG_CONFTEST: no AC_LANG
Unfortunately this commit breaks my build and executable. FC 18. --enable-debug
and --enable-wccp.
Building:
autoreconf -i
fails.
[amc@yuna ats]$ autoreconf -i
configure.ac:1115: warning: AC_LANG_CONFTEST: no AC_LANG_SOURCE call detected
in body
../../lib/autoconf/lang.m4:194: AC_LANG_CO
- Original Message -
> On 08/03/2013, at 1:10 PM, James Peach wrote:
>
> > On 08/03/2013, at 6:38 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
> >>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this
> >>> and many
> >>> other composed pr
I'm going to commit this patch today unless there are any last minute
objections.
Brian
On Mar 8, 2013, at 2:53 PM, John Plevyak wrote:
> Since it it is under the simplified BSD, we can simply not include the
> hazard pointer files to avoid any potential problem.
>
> john
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 201
Since it it is under the simplified BSD, we can simply not include the
hazard pointer files to avoid any potential problem.
john
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Brian Geffon wrote:
> My only concern with concurrencykit is the use of hazard pointers, it's my
> understanding that hazard pointers
On 08/03/2013, at 1:10 PM, James Peach wrote:
> On 08/03/2013, at 6:38 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
>>> other composed primitives from an active community for free.
>>
>>
On 08/03/2013, at 6:38 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
>> other composed primitives from an active community for free.
>
> I discussed this with John a while ago, and we both agree
My only concern with concurrencykit is the use of hazard pointers, it's my
understanding that hazard pointers are patented by IBM:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20040107227?printsec=description#v=onepage&q&f=false
Brian
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Me
- Original Message -
> On 3/8/13 9:50 AM, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > I'm all for this also, i think at minimum we should take advantage
> > of
> > what we get for free from c++11, especially since we have c++11
> > checks
> > in our autoconf script already anyway. I had never actually heard
On 3/8/13 9:50 AM, Brian Geffon wrote:
I'm all for this also, i think at minimum we should take advantage of
what we get for free from c++11, especially since we have c++11 checks
in our autoconf script already anyway. I had never actually heard of
concurrencykit until now. I know TBB isn't reall
I'm all for this also, i think at minimum we should take advantage of
what we get for free from c++11, especially since we have c++11 checks
in our autoconf script already anyway. I had never actually heard of
concurrencykit until now. I know TBB isn't really an option, but has
anyone compared the
+1
On Mar 8, 2013 6:39 AM, "Leif Hedstrom" wrote:
> On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
>
>> Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
>> other composed primitives from an active community for free.
>>
>
> I discussed this with John a while ago, and we both
On 3/8/13 4:24 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Would we consider just pulling in concurrencykit? We'll get this and many
other composed primitives from an active community for free.
I discussed this with John a while ago, and we both agreed it'd be desirable
to use this instead of rolling our own
n Mar 7, 2013 9:13 PM, "Brian Geffon" wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > So to those of you familiar with the freelists you know that it works
> this
> > way the head pointer uses the upper 16 bits for a version to prevent the
> > ABA problem. The big dr
I'll take a look. I was thinking we should make this move. Glad to see
it.
On Mar 7, 2013 9:13 PM, "Brian Geffon" wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> So to those of you familiar with the freelists you know that it works this
> way the head pointer uses the upper 16 bits for a v
Hello all,
So to those of you familiar with the freelists you know that it works this
way the head pointer uses the upper 16 bits for a version to prevent the
ABA problem. The big drawback to this is that it requires the following
NASTY macros to get at the pointer or the version:
#define
Brian
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Brian Geffon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I was curious if anyone could shed some light on the following
>> question I've had. So if I understand this correctly the freelists use
>> the upper 16bits of the data ptr to be a &qu
this correctly the freelists use
> the upper 16bits of the data ptr to be a "version," where this version
> tries to solve several problems related to lockfree data structures
> including the ABA problem and the delete after remove problem. So in
> my quest to understand these more,
Hi,
I was curious if anyone could shed some light on the following
question I've had. So if I understand this correctly the freelists use
the upper 16bits of the data ptr to be a "version," where this version
tries to solve several problems related to lockfree data structures
in
23 matches
Mail list logo
