On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:29:12PM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 03:17:18PM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote: > >> > >> These two patches add a new condition, currently used only by sharers on a > >> SharedLock. Using this conditions throughout a SharedLock it's possible to > >> nicely implement timed waiting. > > > > Design doc changes first plz. > > > > Yeah, sorry, my mistake. I meant to send those as just RFC. > It was basically an "underlying building blocks" discussion to check > if they sound ok, before proceeding.
Huh? How can you "check if the code sounds OK" if there is no explanation on how you want to use them? I don't want to go and reverse engineer the patches… Again, send design changes first, I won't even open the patch emails themselves. iustin
