[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708171547050.3666@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:53:02 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
cfriesen@...tel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org,
clameter@....com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Satyam Sharma writes:
>
> > I wonder if this'll generate smaller and better code than _both_ the
> > other atomic_read_volatile() variants. Would need to build allyesconfig
> > on lots of diff arch's etc to test the theory though.
>
> I'm sure it would be a tiny effect.
>
> This whole thread is arguing about effects that are quite
> insignificant.
Hmm, the fact that this thread became what it did, probably means that
most developers on this list do not mind thinking/arguing about effects
or optimizations that are otherwise "tiny". But yeah, they are tiny
nonetheless.
-
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