[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: bitmaps/bitops
    On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 01:31, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
    > > but the prototype for test_and_set_bit() depends on $(ARCH), and it's
    > > not consistent, with the second arg (bitmap address) being one of:
    > > volatile void *
    > > void *
    > > volatile unsigned long *
    > It should be unsigned long pointer. I have no idea why
    > volatile is still alive. Perhaps Linus can remember why he
    > left it in on is386. Other arch maintainers midnlessly ape him
    > in this area. I think I even kept his e-mail where he explains
    > why volatile has to go.

    Several 2.4 drivers assume the test_and_set point is a memory
    barrier for locking. Lots of

    if(test_and_set_bit(0, &foo))

    Since its inline code and not a memory barrier otherwise there
    is little stop the compile doing



    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 13:34    [W:0.043 / U:3.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site