Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in the linux kernel | Date | Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:31:32 -0800 | From | "Raj, Ashok" <> |
| |
>linux kernel > >On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:27:54AM -0800, King, Steven R wrote: >> Hi Greg, >> What exactly is wrong with spinlock? Far as I know, it's been working >> bug-free on a variety of platforms for quite some time now. The other >> abstractions such as atomic_t are for platform portability. > >Again, compare them to the current kernel spinlocks and try to realize >why your implementation of spinlock_irqsave() will not work on all >platforms.
Humm... think the spin_lock macros used are the _ones_ that is defined in the linux kernel, the other version (cl_spin_lock) is just a wrapper... there is some precedence in the current linux code base that does the same kind of wrapper thingies... , but iam sure no one is *so* excited about *that* code anyway, so I will keep shut!
> >Come on, just use the kernel versions, there is no need to reinvent the >wheel all of the time, it just wastes everyones time (including mine...) >
- 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/
| |