Re: 386/smp issue with atomic_add_return()

On 4/11/06, lepton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi
>         Is there any smp box with 386 cpu?
>         If it exist, then I think atomic_add_return has a problem.
>         Just disabling local interrupts can not keep another cpu from entering this function.
>         What do you think about this?
>
>         This is the code (copied from 2.6.16.4):
>
>         #ifdef CONFIG_M386
>  no_xadd: /* Legacy 386 processor */
>         local_irq_disable();
>         __i = atomic_read(v);
>         atomic_set(v, i + __i);
>         local_irq_enable();
>         return i + __i;
>         #endif

If such a box exists (and I doubt), it is not a commody PC.
First x86 SMP motherboard I heard of was a P1 with two processors.
-
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/

---

• References:
  • 386/smp issue with atomic_add_return()
    • From: lepton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 2/3] swsusp i386 mark special saveable/unsaveable pages
• Next by Date: Re: GPL issues
• Previous by thread: 386/smp issue with atomic_add_return()
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/3] swsusp add architecture special saveable pages support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]