19 Oct
2008
19 Oct
'08
1:46 a.m.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is wrong. For the single reader, single writer
case, atomic operations
are *not* necessary. The bug, as was already pointed out, is due to storing
Let's agree to disagree, then. Single-reader, single-writer does not
automatically make something SMP safe. There is large body of
literature on lock-free data structures that agrees with me; someone
posted a link to a collection of those earlier in the thread.
the unmasked pointer in the ringbuffer, allowing the
other thread to see it
in an invalid state.
Paul Davis disagrees, and I have yet to come up with a scenario where
read_ptr can be assigned a value larger than size. And I'm the one
who pointed out the bug in the first place.