lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386: Fix a couple busy loops in mach_wakecpu.h:wait_for_init_deassert()
Date
On Friday 24 August 2007 18:06, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > But if people do seem to have a mixed / confused notion of atomicity
> > and barriers, and if there's consensus, then as I'd said earlier, I
> > have no issues in going with the consensus (eg. having API variants).
> > Linus would be more difficult to convince, however, I suspect :-)
>
> The confusion may be the result of us having barrier semantics in
> atomic_read. If we take that out then we may avoid future confusions.

I think better name may help. Nuke atomic_read() altogether.

n = atomic_value(x); // doesnt hint as strongly at reading as "atomic_read"
n = atomic_fetch(x); // yes, we _do_ touch RAM
n = atomic_read_uncached(x); // or this

How does that sound?
--
vda
-
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: 2007-08-24 22:29    [W:0.365 / U:3.168 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site