[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708141612590.693@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 16:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
cc: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
segher@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> Because atomic operations are generally used for synchronization, which
> requires volatile behavior. Most such codepaths currently use an inefficient
> barrier(). Some forget to and we get bugs, because people assume that
> atomic_read() actually reads something, and atomic_write() actually writes
> something. Worse, these are architecture-specific, even compiler
> version-specific bugs that are often difficult to track down.
Looks like we need to have lock and unlock semantics?
atomic_read()
which has no barrier or volatile implications.
atomic_read_for_lock
Acquire semantics?
atomic_read_for_unlock
Release semantics?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists