lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
    Date
    On Friday 31 March 2006 19:45, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
    >
    > > Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:
    > > > MODE_BARRIER
    > > > An atomic operation that is guaranteed to occur between
    > > > previous and later memory operations.
    > > I think it's a bad idea to create such an complicated interface.
    > > The chances that an average kernel coder will get these right are
    > > quite small. And it will be 100% untested outside IA64 I guess
    > > and thus likely be always slightly buggy as kernel code continues
    > > to change.
    >
    > Powerpc can do similar things AFAIK. Not sure what other arches have
    > finer grained control over barriers but it could cover a lot of special
    > cases for other processors as well.

    Yes, but I don't think the goal of a portable atomic operations API
    in Linux is it to cover everybody's special case in every possible
    combination. The goal is to have an abstraction that will lead to
    portable code. I don't think your proposal will do this.

    -Andi
    -
    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 19:52    [W:0.025 / U:0.524 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site