Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: "Alex Blekhman" <tkfx.REMOVE@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:37:46 +0200
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote:
Anyway, the sample illustrates very poor synchronization
practice which should not be followed. Proper signalling using
events makes volatile qualifier unnecessary.
There is nothing wrong with this technique if it used correctly.
Synchronization with events or other kernel objects brings the
high price of user space to kernel space trip. It is not uncommon
that you need to synchronize within single process only. In these
cases volatile variables may provide adequate solution.
Alex
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: Alexander Grigoriev
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: George
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: George
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- References:
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: Norbert Unterberg
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: Norbert Unterberg
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: George
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: ajk
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: George
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: Alex Blekhman
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: George
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- From: Alexander Grigoriev
- Re: MSDN volatile sample
- Prev by Date: Re: MSDN volatile sample
- Next by Date: People here are waiting hand and foot on George.
- Previous by thread: Re: MSDN volatile sample
- Next by thread: Re: MSDN volatile sample
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading