[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b040c32a0704111129p5c81b6e8v815e63e550a56f1b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:29:45 -0700
From: "Ken Chen" <kenchen@...gle.com>
To: "Zach Brown" <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock
On 4/11/07, Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com> wrote:
> > Sorry I wasn't thorough enough. And partially because I was worried
> > about changing structure type for user space facing struct aio_ring.
> > Now that I looked through all arches, it looks safe as all arch's
> > atomic_t has the same size as int.
>
> > Here is the updated patch.
>
> > @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ struct kiocb {
> > struct aio_ring {
> > unsigned id; /* kernel internal index number */
> > unsigned nr; /* number of io_events */
> > - unsigned head;
> > + atomic_t head;
> > unsigned tail;
>
> Embedding an atomic_t in an ABI struct? That makes everyone else
> nervous too, right?
sure, make me nervous at least.
> It may look safe on i386/x86-64 today, but this doesn't seem like wise
> practice. Is there any reason to believe that atomic_t will never
> change size? Does anything else do this already?
>
> If nothing else, the "unsigned" (should be __u32, sigh) could be cast to
> an atomic_t.
The atomic_t cast is equally iffy. I don't know what would be a best solution.
-
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