[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix the cpumask rewrite
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> >
> > At least input pretty much relies on the fact that bitops don't need
> > locking and act as memory barriers.
> Well, plain test_bit() has always been more relaxed than the others, and
> has never implied a memory barrier. Only the "test_and_set/clear()" things
> imply memory barriers.

Ouch. I'll have to revisit some code then.

> What we _could_ do (without changing any existing rules) is to add a
> "__test_bit()" that is the relaxed version that doesn't do any of the
> volatile etc. That would match the "__" versions of the other bit
> operations.
> Then people who know that they use the bits without any volatility issues
> can use that one, and let the compiler optimize more.
> Hmm?

That makes a lot of sense to me, as we already have the __ variants for
most of the other bitops already.

Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR
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 14:04    [W:0.062 / U:4.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site