[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kernel/futex.c: Uneeded memory barrier
In message <> you write:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I personally *HATE* the set_task_state()/__set_task_state() macros.
> > Simple assignments shouldn't be hidden behind macros, unless there's
> > something really subtle involved.
> There _is_ something subtle involved. Back in ye olde days, folk

This is what I hate about EMail. You had two choices here: either I
don't understand you, or you don't understand me. You chose wrong,
and wasted a lot of time on an (excellent, BTW) explanation.

I wasn't clear: __set_task_state() and __set_current_state() should
not exist, they are assignments. set_task_state() should not exist,
since it's only used for current anyway. set_current_state should be
split into set_current_interruptible() and
set_current_uninterruptible(), except...

> Sprinkling special kinds of memory barrier into all the drivers is not
> the kind of thing driver writers get right. Also if you look at the

....hiding the subtlety in wrapper functions is the wrong approach. We
have excellent wait_event, wait_event_interruptible and
wait_event_interruptible_timeout macros in wait.h which these drivers
should be using, which would make them simpler, less buggy and

Hope that clarifies?
Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
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 13:48    [W:0.050 / U:45.860 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site