Talk:Linearizability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge
Please, let's not merge atomic operations into linearizability. Atomic operations need not be linearizable to be useful. -- PaulMcKenney
- Out of curiosity, do you know any way of defining "atomic operation" that does not make it linearizable? Probably best to keep this discussion on Talk:Read-copy-update for now. --Chris Purcell 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
As an update, it should be noted that Paul and I concluded (on the other page) that a merge did make sense. --Chris Purcell 18:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Since it appears to be a consensus, I'll go ahead and merge Strict consistency into its own header on this page. -- DSGruss 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Too abstract
--24.251.211.127 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)This description is way too abstract. It would be appropriate to retain the abstracted details, but there really should be some real-world examples both here and in atomicity, not this A vs. B stuff. I've been a software developer for a decade but I don't necessarily find this stuff to be self-explanatory or useful without something to associate the abstract concepts with.
- I agree.
 |
This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. See below for more information. |
--al95521 09:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Got any suggestions? Do we simply want to enhance "A" and "B" with more evocative examples? e.g. "The main thread (A) attempts to lock the progress data structure so it can update the GUI. Meanwhile, a worker thread (B) also attempts to lock the structure to note its latest progress." --Chris Purcell 09:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
