hi all, i am preparing boost.lockfree so that it can be merged to trunk. however i'd request some suggestions, concerning interface and names: ringbuffer naming: there is a fixed-sized single-producer/single-consumer wait-free queue, which is implemented as ringbuffer. the linux kernel uses the name `kfifo', the jack-audio-connection-kit refers to it as `ringbuffer', herlihy/shavit discuss it under the name `BoundedQueue'. the boost.lockfree implementation is currently named `ringbuffer', but i could rename it before merging it into trunk. suggestions: ringbuffer waitfree_queue spsc_queue bounded_queue personally i'd be in favor of `ringbuffer' (because i have been using this name for years) or `spsc_queue' (because it makes clear that it doesn't support multiple produces/consumers). but i'd be curious, what other people suggest. fifo/queue bounded push: fifo and queue can be configured to use a dynamically growing freelist for memory management. in this case, the `push' operations may block if the freelist is exhausted and a new node has to be allocated from the OS. currently this can be avoided by a per-class policy. however it would be reasonable to move this policy from a per-class to a per- call policy. so instead of: queue<T, boost::lockfree::bounded<true> > q; T t; q.push(t); one could write: queue<T> q; T t; q.push_nonblocking(t); however this would imply 3 flavors of `push' * push, which may block during memory allocation * push_unsafe, which is not thread-safe (but faster) * push_nonblocking, which is guaranteed not to hit the memory allocator. so i am not sure, whether this introduces too much complexity into the API. any thoughts/comments? thanks, tim