lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From"Chen, Kenneth W" <>
SubjectRE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 16:50:15 -0800
Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:45 PM
> > 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.

I know, I'm saying since it doesn't make any difference from API point of
view whether it is acq, rel, or no ordering, then just make them rel as a
"preferred" Operation on ia64.

- Ken
-
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 02:52    [from the cache]
©2003-2010