[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708241005360.20501@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.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,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix a couple busy loops in mach_wakecpu.h:wait_for_init_deassert()
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> But if people do seem to have a mixed / confused notion of atomicity
> and barriers, and if there's consensus, then as I'd said earlier, I
> have no issues in going with the consensus (eg. having API variants).
> Linus would be more difficult to convince, however, I suspect :-)
The confusion may be the result of us having barrier semantics in
atomic_read. If we take that out then we may avoid future confusions.
-
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