Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g3BElq8d025276 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:47:52 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g3BElqwX025275 for netdev-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:47:52 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from cyberus.ca (mail.cyberus.ca [216.191.240.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g3BElm8d025271 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:47:48 -0700 Received: from shell.cyberus.ca (shell [216.191.240.114]) by cyberus.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3/Cyberus Online Inc.) with ESMTP id KAA07863; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (hadi@localhost) by shell.cyberus.ca (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BEguC01387; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:42:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.cyberus.ca: hadi owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: jamal To: Martin Devera cc: , Subject: Re: QoS _put, _get and _delete class ops semantic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 745 Lines: 23 On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Martin Devera wrote: > > Typically put() is the backup for delete. Should delete fail > > to destroy because of reference counts being non-zero, put will catch it. > > So that if I understand it correctly: delete can only assure > that class is "invisible" from now to subsequent gets/walks > and other uses and leave actual destroy to the last put. > Do you think that it is reasonable ? > sort of. If you look at the ATM scheduler, you should see the refcount maybe incremented twice. In this case, delete will fail to destroy the class but put() will catch it. If you only increment/decrement then delete should always catch it. In which case you dont need to destroy in put(). Your mileage may vary. cheers, jamal