[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708241259.33659.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:59:32 +0100
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, clameter@....com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ak@...e.de, 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] i386: Fix a couple busy loops in mach_wakecpu.h:wait_for_init_deassert()
On Thursday 16 August 2007 01:39, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> static inline void wait_for_init_deassert(atomic_t *deassert)
> {
> - while (!atomic_read(deassert));
> + while (!atomic_read(deassert))
> + cpu_relax();
> return;
> }
For less-than-briliant people like me, it's totally non-obvious that
cpu_relax() is needed for correctness here, not just to make P4 happy.
IOW: "atomic_read" name quite unambiguously means "I will read
this variable from main memory". Which is not true and creates
potential for confusion and bugs.
--
vda
-
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