[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A24693684029E5489D1D202277BE89447382A591@dlee02.ent.ti.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:11:42 -0600
From: "Aguirre, Sergio" <saaguirre@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work: Don't ignore possible cmpxchg failure
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:09 AM
> To: Aguirre, Sergio
> Cc: LKML; Huang Ying; Martin Schwidefsky; Ingo Molnar; Kyle McMartin
> Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] irq_work: Don't ignore possible cmpxchg failure
>
> On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:57 -0600, Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -145,7 +145,10 @@ void irq_work_run(void)
> > > > * Clear the BUSY bit and return to the free state if
> > > > * no-one else claimed it meanwhile.
> > > > */
> > > > - cmpxchg(&entry->next, next_flags(NULL, IRQ_WORK_BUSY),
> NULL);
> > > > + xchgres = cmpxchg(&entry->next,
> > > > + next_flags(NULL, IRQ_WORK_BUSY),
> > > > + NULL);
> > > > + BUG_ON(unlikely(xchgres != next_flags(NULL,
> IRQ_WORK_BUSY)));
> > >
> > > simply adding (void) in front would be much easier.
> >
> > But isn't that still leaving the remote possibility of a hidden cmpxchg
> > Failure open?
>
> No, we don't care if it fails, read the comment. All we want to know is
> that if it still matched, we flipped the bit.
I understand. Will add just a (void) typecast, and resend then.
Regards,
Sergio
--
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