Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Date | Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:30:41 -0800 |
| |
There is a technical argument: any noninline version will have actual code overhead.
"Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>Hello, Peter. > >On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:31:55AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> I really object to passing two pointers where one of them has to be a >> fixed offset to the other. That really doesn't make any sense. > >Yeah, I hear you, but it really comes down to which ugliness disgusts >one the most. That, unfortunately, is inherently very subjective when >there's no significantly better choice. > >For me, the double parameter thing at least seems to have the >advantages of being able to verify the two intended memory locations >to be used actually are together and looking ugly reflecting its true >nature. > >The inherent ugliness stems from the fact that we don't have the >built-in data type to properly deal with this. Array of length two >might be better fit, but I can see as many downsides with that too. > >So, if anyone can give something clearly better for technical reasons, >I'll be more than happy to take it, but as it currently stands, it >seems we'll have to choose one among uglies and not everyone would be >happy about the choice. :-( > >Thanks. > >-- >tejun
-- Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.
| |