[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates
On 02/11/2011 02:15 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> a bit of history...
> For the disabled jump label case, we didn't want to incur an atomic_read() to
> check if the branch was enabled.
> So, I separated the API, to have one for the non-atomic case, and one
> for the atomic case. Nobody liked that.
> So now, I'm proposing to leave the core API based around a non-atomic
> variable, and have any callers that want to use this atomic interface,
> to call into the non-atomic interface. If another user besides perf
> wants to use the same type of atomic interface, we can re-visit the
> decsion?

What is the problem with taking the atomic_read()?


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-11 23:23    [W:0.156 / U:38.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site