Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4

* Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]> wrote:

> [...] on ARMv6 at least this can be improved even further, but a 
> special implementation which is neither a fully qualified atomic 
> decrement nor an atomic swap is needed. [...]

i'm curious, how would this ARMv6 solution look like, and what would be 
the advantages over the atomic swap based variant?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
    • From: Nicolas Pitre <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Perfctr-devel] Re: quick overview of the perfmon2 interface
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]