On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > And for those of us with only load-and-zero, that's simply:
> >
> > #define load_locked(addr) spin_lock(hash(addr)), *addr
> > #define store_exclusive(addr, old, new) \
> > *addr = new, spin_unlock(hash(addr)), 0
> >
> > which is also optimal for us.
>
> This means we tolerate the assignment race for SMP that was pointed out
> earlier?
What gave you that impression? It simply wasn't part of this example.
To be honest, it'd be much easier if we only defined these operations on
atomic_t's. We have all the infrastructure in place for them, and
they're fairly well understood. If you need different sizes, I'm OK
with an atomic_pointer_t, or whatever.
-
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]
