Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:51 PM
> > > It precise the uncleanness in ia64 that such semantics are attached to
> > > these bit operations which may lead people to depend on those. We need to
> > > either make these explicit or not depend on them.
> >
> > I know, I'm saying since it doesn't make any difference from API point of
> > view whether it is acq, rel, or no ordering, then just make them rel as a
> > "preferred" Operation on ia64.
>
> That would make the behavior of clear_bit different from other bitops and
> references to volatile pointers. I'd like to have this as consistent as
> possible.
Yeah, but we just agreed that caller shouldn't be thinking clear_bit has
memory ordering at all.
- Ken
-
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]
