[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D55B5E8.2040306@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:19:20 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, sam@...nborg.org,
ddaney@...iumnetworks.com, michael@...erman.id.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates
On 02/11/2011 02:15 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
>
> a bit of history...
>
> For the disabled jump label case, we didn't want to incur an atomic_read() to
> check if the branch was enabled.
>
> So, I separated the API, to have one for the non-atomic case, and one
> for the atomic case. Nobody liked that.
>
> So now, I'm proposing to leave the core API based around a non-atomic
> variable, and have any callers that want to use this atomic interface,
> to call into the non-atomic interface. If another user besides perf
> wants to use the same type of atomic interface, we can re-visit the
> decsion?
>
What is the problem with taking the atomic_read()?
-hpa
--
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