On 06/09/2011 12:31 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Good catch! I missed those parts from the urcu.c wait/wakeup scheme > (decrement initially, and also set to 0 explicitely when breaking the > loop without waiting). I just added them with commit > c768e45ed336970a42e58e679804f0f455422cd8 Yes, looks good. Paolo