Re: proposed smp_rendezvous change

on 15/05/2011 19:09 Max Laier said the following:
> 
> I don't think we ever intended to synchronize the local teardown part, and I 
> believe that is the correct behavior for this API.
> 
> This version is sufficiently close to what I have, so I am resonably sure that 
> it will work for us.  It seems, however, that if we move to check to after 
> picking up the lock anyway, the generation approach has even less impact and I 
> am starting to prefer that solution.
> 
> Andriy, is there any reason why you'd prefer your approach over the generation 
> version?

No reason.  And I even haven't said that I prefer it :-)
I just wanted to show and explain it as apparently there was some
misunderstanding about it.  I think that generation count approach could even
have a little bit better performance while perhaps being a tiny bit less obvious.

-- 
Andriy Gapon