[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Inconsistency in changing the state of task ??
> > Thanks Robert for the reply.
> > But I notice that __set_current_state() is same as current->state. So, I
> > didn't understand the safety factor on using __set_current_state( ).
> There is no safety with __set_current_state(). It is just an
> abstraction.
> The safety comes from set_current_state(), which ensures memory
> ordering.
> This is an issue not just on SMP, but on a weakly ordered processor like
> Alpha.
> > Also why should I use __set_current_state() instead of
> set_current_state()
> > when the later is SMP safe.
> You only use __set_current_state() if you know you do not need to ensure
> memory ordering constraints.

Man, I forgot how many times I have already posted the patch to fix this ...

Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own
(and my fault)

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 13:33    [W:0.016 / U:1.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site