Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Wed, 4 May 2011 12:38:28 -0700 | Subject | Re: [block IO crash] Re: 2.6.39-rc5-git2 boot crashs |
| |
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote: > > The naming convention came about from the existing this_cpu_xxx > operations
You're missing my point.
An "add" operation makes sense even if it isn't atomic, because atomicity isn't a part of the definition of "add".
But cmpxchg DOES NOT MAKE SENSE without atomicity guarantees.
The whole operation is about atomicity.
Having a version that isn't atomic is STUPID. It's misleading. It's _wrong_.
In contrast, having a non-atomic "add" version is understandable.
So when you say "naming convention", you're missing the much bigger naming convention. Namely the "cmpxchg" part!
Linus
| |