[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150508164534.GK25587@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 17:45:35 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about barriers for ARM on tools/perf/
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:27:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 11:57:01AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:48:20PM +0100, Will Deacon escreveu:
>
> > > Do you know what the objection to the intrinsics was? I believe that
> > > the __sync versions are deprecated in favour of the C11-like __atomic
> > > flavours, so if that was all the objection was about then we could use
> > > one or the other depending on what the compiler supports.
> >
> > Peter? Ingo?
>
> I cannot remember, the __sync things should mostly work I suppose, and
> if you wrap then in the normal atomic interface we don't have to learn
> yet another API.
Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
> That said, I've successfully lifted this kernel code into userspace in
> the past.
Lifting a copy isn't too bad, it's using the same file that worries me.
Will
--
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