On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 02:42:09 +0100 Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 04.02.2007 02:56 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> > On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 02:32:41 +0100 Tilman Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
> >>>> + cb = cs->cmdbuf;
> >>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cs->cmdlock, flags);
> >>> It is doubtful if the locking here does anything useful.
> >> It assures atomicity when reading the cs->cmdbuf pointer.
> >
> > I think it's bogus. If the quantity being copied here is more than 32-bits
> > then yes, a lock is appropriate. But if it's a single word then it's
> > unlikely that the locking does anything useful. Or there might be a bug
> > here.
>
> It's a pointer. Are reads and writes of pointer sized objects
> guaranteed to be atomic on every platform?
Yup - we make the same assumption about longs in various places.
It's a bit strange to read a pointer which can be changing at the
same time. Because the local copy will no longer represent the
thing which it was just copied from.
-
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/
[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]
