Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 08:39 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:26:53PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> > Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 06:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> >
> > > I am happy to go either way -- the patch with the memory barriers
> > > (which does have the side-effect of slowing down kfifo_get() and
> > > kfifo_put(), by the way), or a patch removing the comments saying
> > > that it is OK to invoke __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put() without
> > > locking.
> > >
> > > Any other thoughts on which is better? (1) the memory barriers or
> > > (2) requiring the caller hold appropriate locks across calls to
> > > __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put()?
> >
> > If someone wants to use explicit locking, he/she can go with kfifo_get()
> > instead of the __ version.
>
> However, the kfifo_get()/kfifo_put() interfaces use the internal lock,
... and the internal lock can be supplied by the user at kfifo_alloc()
time.
Stelian.
--
Stelian Pop <[email protected]>
-
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]
