[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070808.184824.133910636.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: csnook@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au, wjiang@...ilience.com,
cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:03:27 +0800
> Such loops should always use something like cpu_relax() which comes
> with a barrier.
This is an excellent point.
And it needs to be weighed with the error prone'ness Andrew mentioned.
There probably is a middle ground somewhere.
-
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