Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> This seems to be a very silly question (and I'm bound to be utterly
> wrong as proven in my last round) but why are we implementing a new
> set of atomic primitives which effectively do the same thing as our
> existing set?
>
> Why can't we just use atomic_t for this?
atomic_t is the wrong thing as it's basically an int, not an unsigned long.
atomic64_t/atomic_long_t is also probably the wrong thing to use as it's a
signed long (and the long is also volatile on some platforms - x86_64 for
example). Bitops operate on unsigned long.
But the most important point is that assign_bits() has to take the same pointer
type as test_bit(), set_bit(), test_and_set_bit(), etc., and none of those
operate on an atomic*_t.
We could change that, of course, but I don't fancy tackling the task just at
the moment. It oughtn't to be a difficult change, but there are a lot of flags
words in the kernel.
David
-
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]
