WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS

[Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>]

    Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 12:45:43 EDT
    From: greek@DEC-HUDSON

    I think if we abandon the name WITHOUT-INTERRUPTS, which has all kinds
    of vague conotations, and adopt the name CRITICAL-SECTION, we might
    get further in understanding what it ought to do.

    - Paul

No, it hides the issue rather than clarifies it.  On a certain class of
simple systems, CRITICAL-SECTION means "without interrupts".  When
multiprocessing and other complications are introduced, then
"without interrupts" is not only not sufficiently adequate,
but not sufficiently -specific- as to exactly what must be locked out.
"CRITICAL-SECTION" makes no claim to asserting exactly what must be
locked out, but in no way addresses the problem that this is a
complicated set, either.