RE: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()

["Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@hp.com>]

> From: Christoph Lameter 
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > Zoltan Menyhart wrote:
> > 
> > > However, I do not think your implementation would be 
> efficient due 
> > > to selecting the ordering mode at run time:
> > > 
> > > > +    switch (mode) {
> > > > +    case MODE_NONE :
> > > > +    case MODE_ACQUIRE :
> > > > +        return cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new);
> > > > +    case MODE_FENCE :
> > > > +        smp_mb();
> > > > +        /* Fall through */
> > > > +    case MODE_RELEASE :
> > > > +        return cmpxchg_rel(m, old, new);
> > > 
> > 
> > BTW. Isn't MODE_FENCE wrong? Seems like a read or write 
> could be moved 
> > above cmpxchg_rel?
> 
> Hmmm.... We should call this MODE_BARRIER I guess...
>  
I arrived at the conclusion that "fence" is a better term, at least in
user-level code.  "Barrier" seems to generate confusion with
"pthread_barrier_wait" and similar constructs, which are a different
kind of beast.

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