[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080214122333.397d83d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:23:33 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, kbaidarov@...mvista.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] IPMI: convert locked counters to atomics
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:33:10 -0600
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> + for (i = 0; i < IPMI_NUM_STATS; i++)
> >> + atomic_set(&intf->stats[i], 0);
> >>
> >
> > And this is why it would be very hard for any architecture to ever
> > implement atomic_t as
> >
> > struct atomic_t {
> > int counter;
> > spinlock_t lock;
> > };
> >
> > The interface assumes that atomic_set() fully initialises the atomic_t, and
> > that atomic_set() can be used agaisnt both an uninitialised atomic_t and
> > against an already-initialised atomic_t. IOW, we don't have atomic_init().
> >
> > So would our hypothetical future architcture's atomic_set() do spin_lock(),
> > or would it do spin_lock_init()? Either one is wrong in many atomic_set
> > callsites.
> >
> > Oh well.
> >
> Yeah, I thought the same thing when I did this. Do we start working
> on an atomic_init()? It would be easy enough to set it to atomic_set()
> for current architectures.
I suppose we should, but I can't say I'm terribly excited by the prospect ;)
--
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