Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ

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

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
<rmind%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> I would rather extend atomic_ops(3) API to have functions which ensure
> a particular memory barrier or a function which takes the constraint as
> an extra argument, like in C11 API.  Speaking of which, it might be worth
> to evaluate C11 atomics and consider whether we should just move there..

More I learn, more I'm liking this approach.

So the direction is, code expresses intention more clearly, gives more
information to compiler.  Compiler will understand more about memory
ordering in the future and do optimization.