[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061208194357.GJ31068@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 19:43:57 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, akpm@...l.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:37:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Russell King wrote:
> >
> > I utterly disagree. I could code atomic_add() as:
>
> Sure. And Alpha could do that too. If you write the C code a specific way,
> you can make it work. That does NOT mean that you can expose it widely as
> a portable interface - it's still just a very _nonportable_ interface that
> you use internally within one architecture to implement other interfaces.
However, nothing stops you wrapping the non-portable nature of ll/sc up
into the store part though.
If you can efficiently implement cmpxchg inside an ll/sc based portable
interface (yes you can) and you can implement problematical ll/sc
structures inside a cmpxchg() interface, you can do it either way around.
Only one way doesn't penalise broken ll/sc based implementations though.
That is the essence of my argument.
--
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