[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061207234250.GH1255@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:42:51 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...l.org,
davem@...emloft.com, wli@...omorphy.com, matthew@....cx,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg()
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:06:39PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
>
> > and we can assume (and ensure) that a failing test_and_set_bit() will not
> > write to the affected word at all.
>
> You may not assume that; and indeed that is not so in the generic
> spinlock-based bitops or ARM pre-v6 or PA-RISC or sparc32 or ...
Incorrect. pre-v6 ARM bitops for test_and_xxx_bit() all do:
save and disable irqs
load value
test bit
if not in desired state, alter bit and write it back
restore irqs
but I don't guarantee that we'll always do that - indeed, post-armv6
bitops always write back even if the bit was in the desired state.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
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