Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [PATCH 2.5.52] Use __set_current_state() instead of current-> state = (take 1) | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 18 Dec 2002 22:19:47 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 21:40, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> Well, I think it makes kind of sense. If we know we are > returning to some place where nothing bad could happen > with reordering ... well, so be it, don't use __set_...()
Oh, I see. If it returns to somewhere that immediately e.g. puts it on a wait queue. In that case, yep: need the barrier version.
> And that would now really work when CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE=1 is required > [after all, it is a write, so it'd need the equivalent of a wmb() or > xchg()].
Is this a hint that your employer may have an x86 chip in the future with weak ordering? :)
> Okay, changing that one too, just in case.
Good - better safe than sorry.
Robert Love
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |