On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:47:45AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 08:18:36AM +0000, Wodkowski, PawelX wrote: > > > Though, that said, doesn't it seem to anyone else like serialization of > > > enqueue > > > to a port should be the responsibility of the library, not the > > > application? > > > > > > Neil > > > > From my knowledge it is an application responsibility to serialize access > > to > > queue on particular port. > > > I understand thats the way it currently is, I'm advocating for the fact that > it > should not be. > Neil > It could be done, but I think we'd need to add a new API (or new parameter to existing API) to do so, as the cost of adding the locks would be severe, even in the uncontented case. This is why it hasn't been done up till now, obviously enough. In general, where we don't provide performant multi-thread safe APIs, we generally don't try and provide versions with locks, we just document the limitation and then leave it up to the app to determine how best to handle things.
/Bruce
