From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
In article <69345887$0$663$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>On 12/4/2025 3:59 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/4/2025 2:49 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> 1) What is the reason for using the CMA interface instead of the pthread
>>> interface ? If there is no specific reason, perhaps rewriting it as a
>>> pthreads application might give some clues.
>>
>> I already have working pthreads code.
>>
>> I wanted to do the same with cma.
>
>There are something in cma not present in pthread.
>
>The cma API comes with the cma_lib_queue_* functions.
Presumably this doesn't exist in pthreads because it's simple to
do oneself using the tools that interface gives you (mutexes and
condition variables, specifically).
For example, I whipped this up earlier today as a demonstration:
https://github.com/dancrossnyc/cqueue/blob/main/cqueue.c
(The `try_*` implementations left as an exercise for the reader;
they are very simple, but I just could't be bothered.)
Nothing in the CMA lib APIs strikes me as particularly worth
adding it to the interface, and one can imagine all sorts of
enhancements that it just doesn't provide (prioritization;
fairness; sending by value instead of reference, etc).
For non-trivial applications, I imagine the pthreads folks
decided that it was probably better to do it yourself, or find
a third-party library better suited to the specific use case.
>Doing similar to java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue
>if you are familiar with that.
Well, not quite. That's generic over some element type, E. The
CMA library functions, and my own trivial example, just use a
pointer, which is rather different.
- Dan C.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
