lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double
From
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-21 17:35    [W:1.484 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site