[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185316368.5439.293.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:32:48 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] i386: bitops: Don't mark memory as clobbered
unnecessarily
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 17:55 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> If you want to use bitops as spinlocks you should rather be using
> <linux/bit_spinlock.h>. That also does the right thing w.r.t.
> pre-emption and sparse locking annotations.
Heh, I didn't know about those... A bit annoying that I can't override
them in the arch, I might be able to save a barrier or two here. Our
test_and_set_bit() contains both barriers for lock and unlock semantics
to cope with all kind of abuses, but your bit_spinlock obviously doesn't
need that.
Cheers,
Ben.
-
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