On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > > 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.
In general yes the caller should not be thinking about clear_bit having
any memory ordering at all. However for IA64 arch specific code the bit
operations must have a certain ordering semantic and it would be best that
these are also consistent. clear_bit is not a lock operation and may
f.e. be used for locking something.
-
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]
