lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-04 21:47    [W:0.022 / U:2.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site