lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
Date
Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 5:09 PM
> In general yes the caller should not be thinking about clear_bit having
> any memory ordering at all. However for IA64 arch specific code the bit
> operations must have a certain ordering semantic and it would be best that
> these are also consistent. clear_bit is not a lock operation and may
> f.e. be used for locking something.

OK, fine. Then please don't change smp_mb__after_clear_bit() for ia64.
i.e., leave it alone as noop.

- 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 03:15    [W:0.069 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site