Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: atomic64_t proposal | Date | 28 Aug 2002 14:39:28 -0700 |
| |
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208281040010.14946-100000@rmholt.homeip.net> By author: Robin Holt <holt@rmholt.homeip.net> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > 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.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |