Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> It is users' choice whether using fast-changing values as a key or
> not, but if you decide to change values visible by pserialize(9)
> readers, you'll end up with ensuring memory order.  It is your choice,
> but beyond pserialize(9)'s responsibility.

Correction: changing values can be read by volatile.  No memory
barrier is needed if there's no memory ordering constraint.