From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <283f5df10612061436i5179e5f7mc7930ebf1f3ec280@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed,  6 Dec 2006 17:36:19 -0500
From: "LiteStar numnums" <litestar@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] OT: cannonical set of queue ops
In-Reply-To: <676c3c4f0612060835x414a779ao6e1f5fcbe021aba9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <15215407ef3dbfddfed3946505e2dc78@quintile.net>
	<676c3c4f0612060835x414a779ao6e1f5fcbe021aba9@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ebdd4882-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>For instance, if IsQueueEmpty returns "true", that answer isn't worth
very much if, by
> the time you act on that information, some other thread could have
> added an item to the queue.

Wouldn't it be natural for such a function to block the active thread
until the desired
result is achieved? Since this clean up thread wouldn't really need to
be on a hard deadline, wouldn't WaitQueueEmpty make more sense then a
IsQueueEmpty? The writer may be more difficult, but again, if the
Queue is full, it must wait anyway, so blocking here wouldn't be too
problematic, methinks.

--=20
If work and leisure are soon to be subordinated to this one utopian
principle -- absolute busyness -- then utopia and melancholy will come
to coincide: an age without conflict will dawn, perpetually busy --
and without consciousness.

 -- G=FCnter Grass