On 06/26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> On Monday, 25 June 2007 23:55, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > > case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE:
> > > case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE:
> > > usermodehelper_disabled = 1;
> > > - return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > + smp_mb();
> >
> > usermodehelper_disabled should be atomic variable, too, so we don't
> > have to play these ugly tricks by hand? This should not be
> > performance-critical, right?
>
> Well, I think we'd need to add the barriers anyway.
>
> The problem, as far as I understand it, is that the instructions can get
> reordered if there are no barriers in there.
Yes, and it doesn't help if we make usermodehelper_disabled atomic_t.
atomic_xxx() operations do not imply the memory barrier semantics.
Oleg.
-
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]