Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:19:20 -0800 | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates |
| |
On 02/11/2011 02:15 PM, Jason Baron wrote: > > a bit of history... > > For the disabled jump label case, we didn't want to incur an atomic_read() to > check if the branch was enabled. > > So, I separated the API, to have one for the non-atomic case, and one > for the atomic case. Nobody liked that. > > So now, I'm proposing to leave the core API based around a non-atomic > variable, and have any callers that want to use this atomic interface, > to call into the non-atomic interface. If another user besides perf > wants to use the same type of atomic interface, we can re-visit the > decsion? >
What is the problem with taking the atomic_read()?
-hpa
|  |