[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C3253F.5090707@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:09:35 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, clameter@....com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ak@...e.de, 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, segher@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 08:05:38PM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>> I don't know if this here is affected:
[...something like]
b = atomic_read(a);
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
msleep_interruptible(63);
c = atomic_read(a);
if (c != b) {
b = c;
i = 0;
}
}
> Nope, we're calling schedule which is a rather heavy-weight
> barrier.
How does the compiler know that msleep() has got barrier()s?
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =--- -====
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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