Re: [Corelinux-develop] Smart Pointers

[Ian C. <co...@st...>]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Frank V. Castellucci wrote:

<snip>

> >As for semaphore pools... are you talking about something clever to avoid
> >my (wasteful?) "mutex for each instance" scheme?  Like I said, I don't
> >follow.  :(
> >
> You follow, this is a clever way, but has a price.

I figured it would. :)

> >Does this replace #7 or is it over and above it?  If the latter, then what
> >does #7 really mean?
> >
> Again, re-entrancy and guarded (mutex) are two different things neh?

Alright.  To make sure we're on the same page: I presume you mean that all
R/O operations involving the underlying pointer be re-entrant.  And the
write operations must be guarded.  Yes?

Ian.

-- 
-----------------------------
http://www.stasis.org/~codic/