Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] memory ordering in __kfifo primitives | From | Stelian Pop <> | Date | Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:47:22 +0200 |
| |
Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 08:39 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:26:53PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote: > > Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 06:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > > > > I am happy to go either way -- the patch with the memory barriers > > > (which does have the side-effect of slowing down kfifo_get() and > > > kfifo_put(), by the way), or a patch removing the comments saying > > > that it is OK to invoke __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put() without > > > locking. > > > > > > Any other thoughts on which is better? (1) the memory barriers or > > > (2) requiring the caller hold appropriate locks across calls to > > > __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put()? > > > > If someone wants to use explicit locking, he/she can go with kfifo_get() > > instead of the __ version. > > However, the kfifo_get()/kfifo_put() interfaces use the internal lock,
... and the internal lock can be supplied by the user at kfifo_alloc() time.
Stelian. -- Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>
- 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/
| |