[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c661a1e2-4e08-4e6b-b2c8-93e231be981f@email.android.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:30:41 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg double V2 1/4] Generic support for this_cpu_cmpxchg_double
There is a technical argument: any noninline version will have actual code overhead.
"Tejun Heo" <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>Hello, Peter.
>
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:31:55AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> I really object to passing two pointers where one of them has to be a
>> fixed offset to the other. That really doesn't make any sense.
>
>Yeah, I hear you, but it really comes down to which ugliness disgusts
>one the most. That, unfortunately, is inherently very subjective when
>there's no significantly better choice.
>
>For me, the double parameter thing at least seems to have the
>advantages of being able to verify the two intended memory locations
>to be used actually are together and looking ugly reflecting its true
>nature.
>
>The inherent ugliness stems from the fact that we don't have the
>built-in data type to properly deal with this. Array of length two
>might be better fit, but I can see as many downsides with that too.
>
>So, if anyone can give something clearly better for technical reasons,
>I'll be more than happy to take it, but as it currently stands, it
>seems we'll have to choose one among uglies and not everyone would be
>happy about the choice. :-(
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>tejun
--
Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.
--
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