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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans