Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | | Subject | Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2 | | Date | Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:48:37 +0200 |
| |
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/
|  |