lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
    On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

    > > static __inline__ void
    > > clear_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
    > > {
    > > - __u32 mask, old, new;
    > > - volatile __u32 *m;
    > > - CMPXCHG_BUGCHECK_DECL
    > > -
    > > - m = (volatile __u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5);
    > > - mask = ~(1 << (nr & 31));
    > > - do {
    > > - CMPXCHG_BUGCHECK(m);
    > > - old = *m;
    > > - new = old & mask;
    > > - } while (cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new) != old);
    > > + clear_bit_mode(nr, addr, MODE_ATOMIC);
    > > }
    >
    > I would make that MODE_RELEASE for clear_bit, simply to match the
    > observation that clear_bit is usually used in unlock path and have
    > potential less surprises.

    clear_bit per se is defined as an atomic operation with no implications
    for release or acquire. If it is used for release then either add the
    appropriate barrier or use MODE_RELEASE explicitly.

    It precise the uncleanness in ia64 that such semantics are attached to
    these bit operations which may lead people to depend on those. We need to
    either make these explicit or not depend on them.


    -
    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: 2006-03-31 02:47    [W:0.025 / U:0.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site