[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [PATCH 00/10] usb-serial: Switches from spin lock to atomic_t.

> > No they're not. Both are just about equally expensive cpu wise,
> > sometimes the atomic_t ones are a bit more expensive (like on parisc
> > architecture). But on x86 in either case it's a locked cycle, which is
> > just expensive no matter which side you flip the coin...
> But if a lock is used exclusively to protect a int variable, an atomic_t
> seems to be more appropriate to me. Isn't it?

sounds like it...

> Please, if you could, review the patches with this in mind: we aren't
> changing any behaviour neither creating any weird lock scheme, we are
> only doing two things:

... however you are NOT changing the behavior, which is EXACTLY my
point; the current "lock emulation" behavior is wrong, all you're doing
is replacing how you do the wrong thing ;)

It's like having a bike with square wheels, and replacing a flat tire
with one with air in, as opposed to replacing it with a round wheel...

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: 2005-12-07 17:05    [W:0.050 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site