lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix the cpumask rewrite

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>
> At least input pretty much relies on the fact that bitops don't need
> locking and act as memory barriers.

Well, plain test_bit() has always been more relaxed than the others, and
has never implied a memory barrier. Only the "test_and_set/clear()" things
imply memory barriers.

What we _could_ do (without changing any existing rules) is to add a
"__test_bit()" that is the relaxed version that doesn't do any of the
volatile etc. That would match the "__" versions of the other bit
operations.

Then people who know that they use the bits without any volatility issues
can use that one, and let the compiler optimize more.

Hmm?

Linus
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.141 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site