[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:0.042 / U:17.792 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site