[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D11373D.9010205@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:24:45 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V1 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double
On 12/21/2010 02:36 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>> pointers from the beginning. Anyways, that's too late, so is it
>> completely impossible to make cmpxchg_double's take a scalar value?
>> It can take the pointer all the same, no?
>
> It could take a scalar value like the others but we are then not operating
> on the scalar alone but also on the following field.
>
I'm a bit confused on this one. The standard cmpxchg() takes a scalar
and a pointer, and returns a scalar. The equivalent for the "double"
variety would be to return a compound object, basically:
struct double_ulong {
unsigned long v[2];
};
... which can be returned in registers on both i386 and x86-64.
It's a bit clumsy from a type perspective, but I'm not sure that that is
a bad thing. Doing too much type genericity has caused us problems in
the past.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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