> > No they're not. Both are just about equally expensive cpu wise,
> > sometimes the atomic_t ones are a bit more expensive (like on parisc
> > architecture). But on x86 in either case it's a locked cycle, which is
> > just expensive no matter which side you flip the coin...
>
> But if a lock is used exclusively to protect a int variable, an atomic_t
> seems to be more appropriate to me. Isn't it?
sounds like it...
> Please, if you could, review the patches with this in mind: we aren't
> changing any behaviour neither creating any weird lock scheme, we are
> only doing two things:
... however you are NOT changing the behavior, which is EXACTLY my
point; the current "lock emulation" behavior is wrong, all you're doing
is replacing how you do the wrong thing ;)
It's like having a bike with square wheels, and replacing a flat tire
with one with air in, as opposed to replacing it with a round wheel...
-
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]
