[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607141017520.5623@g5.osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove volatile from nmi.c
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Now, there is a "reason" we'd want "endflag" to either be volatile, or
> have the "set_wmb()", and that is that the code is incorrect in the first
> place.
Btw, and this may just be me, but I personally don't much like the
"set_wmb()" macro. I think it should be removed.
I don't think we actually use it anywhere, and the thing is, it's not
really useful. It is basically _always_ equivalent to
var = value;
smp_wmb();
except I think some architectures could _in_theory_ make the assignment be
a "store with release consistency". The only architecture where that might
make sense that I can think of is Itanium, and even there the ia64
set_wmb() macro doesn't actually do that.
Yeah, the
endflag = 1;
smp_wmb();
is a bit longer, but is actually easier to understand, I think.
I suspect "set_wmb()" was added just from an incorrect sense of
consistency with "set_mb()" (which I don't particularly like either, but
at least that one makes a difference on a real platform, ie on x86 that
"set_mb()" ends up being implemented as a single "xchg" instruction).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists