On 08/04/2009 11:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:53:03AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 08/03/2009 07:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Why not do it at the point of the write?
if (value != ctx->count) {
ctx->count = value;
wake_things_up();
}
What if write comes before read?
The read will get the new value.
Yes :) But how does read know it should not block?
If a different read comes after the write but after our read, it will
have transferred the value, resulting in the same situation.
I think reads should never block with a state based mechanism.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
