Hi, On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Maurizio Lombardi <[email protected]> wrote: > I Jan, > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Ján Veselý <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I peeked at the changes and it looks like you left any fibril >> synchronization out of the data structure and handle it explicitly. >> Is there any specific reason for doing this? > > All the other data structures under libc left to the user the > responsibility to solve the potential synchronization issues.
hm, can someone shed some light whether this is due to a conscious decision or a lack of initiative? > Providing both blocking and non-blocking calls is acceptable to me, > tomorrow I'll add this feature. There are similar structures in fifo.h and dynamic_fifo.h (they are ugly, and only used in kernel). I think it would be ok to just provide thread +overflow/underflow safe wrappers on top these implementations. Jan _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
