[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:23:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: using long instead of atomic_t when only set/read
is required
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Well something like this could happen, in theory, on a "32-bit" architecture
> with a 16-bit bus.
No it couldn't.
That would only be true if there is no cache, and no cache coherency.
Basically, Linux requires a cache-coherent architecture to work in SMP.
Anything else is insane (except as a cluster).
So there is no way we can see partial updates, except with terminally
broken hardware that we would never support anyway for tons of other
reasons.
Linus
--
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