[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: atomic64_t proposal
Followup to:  <>
By author: Robin Holt <>
In newsgroup:
> I do like the atomic_inc, atomic_dec, etc being able to handle either
> type. While producing code, I can do a simple check at the beginning of
> the block and define the appropriate type for a particular architecture.

Great. How do you expect to implement atomic_inc() et al so that that
can actually be done? Consider that atomic64_t may very well need
full-blown spinlocks, whereas a 32-bit atomic_t may not.

<> at work, <> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.223 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site