From: Austin Bingham (abingham_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-22 14:24:52
Overall I really like the work you've done here.
I have a question about the scheduling of shared v. exclusive locks on
shared_mutex. Suppose I have several shared locks already established
and then an exclusive lock is tried. Are subsequent shared lock attempts
deferred until after theexclusive lock has released? Or is the exclusive
lock deferred until after all shared locks (regardless of when they were
made) are released? Or is this even defined?
It may be easiest to just leave the scheduling undefined, and perhaps
that is the intent of the proposal. Whether it's defined or not, though,
it should be documented.
It might be useful, however, if the scheduling policy were configurable.
It seems that such a policy could be established on the shared_mutex
Again, this is really excellent and I'm genuinely excited to see
this progress. Thanks for all the hard work!
-- Austin Bingham Signal & Information Sciences Laboratory Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin 10000 Burnet Rd., Austin, TX 78758 email: abingham_at_[hidden] cell: (512) 799-2444 office: (512) 835-3832
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk