On Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 00:27 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki 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.
>
> That seems dodgy either way to me :-)
>
> Just use a spinlock.
Around wait_for_completion()? I don't think that's a good idea. :-)
Greetings,
Rafael
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
-
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]