[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: greek@DEC-HUDSON.ARPA, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 10:07 EDT
- In-reply-to: The message of 22 Oct 85 12:45-EDT from greek@DEC-HUDSON
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 12:45:43 EDT
I think if we abandon the name WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS, which has all kinds
of vague conotations, and adopt the name CRITICAL-SECTION, we might
get further in understanding what it ought to do.
No, it hides the issue rather than clarifies it. On a certain class of
simple systems, CRITICAL-SECTION means "without interrupts". When
multiprocessing and other complications are introduced, then
"without interrupts" is not only not sufficiently adequate,
but not sufficiently -specific- as to exactly what must be locked out.
"CRITICAL-SECTION" makes no claim to asserting exactly what must be
locked out, but in no way addresses the problem that this is a
complicated set, either.