lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double
Hello,

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 03:24:45PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 02:36 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> >> pointers from the beginning. Anyways, that's too late, so is it
> >> completely impossible to make cmpxchg_double's take a scalar value?
> >> It can take the pointer all the same, no?
> >
> > It could take a scalar value like the others but we are then not operating
> > on the scalar alone but also on the following field.

Yes, it's weird but the operation itself is weird enough and named
accordingly, so to me it seems like a much lesser problem than
breaking interface consistency with other this_cpu_ ops.

> I'm a bit confused on this one. The standard cmpxchg() takes a scalar
> and a pointer, and returns a scalar. The equivalent for the "double"
> variety would be to return a compound object, basically:
>
> struct double_ulong {
> unsigned long v[2];
> };
>
> ... which can be returned in registers on both i386 and x86-64.
>
> It's a bit clumsy from a type perspective, but I'm not sure that that is
> a bad thing. Doing too much type genericity has caused us problems in
> the past.

Yeah, the above might be better too. Is there any reason to use
cmpxchg_double on anything smaller?

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-22 10:17    [W:0.112 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site