[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46BFFA71.4080601@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:30:09 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
horms@...ge.net.au, wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com,
zlynx@....org, rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on ia64
Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Chris Snook writes:
>
>> I'll do this for the whole patchset. Stay tuned for the resubmit.
>
> Could you incorporate Segher's patch to turn atomic_{read,set} into
> asm on powerpc? Segher claims that using asm is really the only
> reliable way to ensure that gcc does what we want, and he seems to
> have a point.
>
> Paul.
I haven't seen a patch yet. I'm going to resubmit with inline volatile-cast
atomic[64]_[read|set] on all architectures as a reference point, and if anyone
wants to go and implement some of them in assembly, that's between them and the
relevant arch maintainers. I have no problem with (someone else) doing it in
assembly. I just don't think it's necessary and won't let it hold up the effort
to get consistent behavior on all architectures.
-- Chris
-
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