[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
    Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:51 PM
    > > > 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.
    > That would make the behavior of clear_bit different from other bitops and
    > references to volatile pointers. I'd like to have this as consistent as
    > possible.

    Yeah, but we just agreed that caller shouldn't be thinking clear_bit has
    memory ordering at all.

    - Ken
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-31 03:01    [W:0.025 / U:1.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site