On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:49:03PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Chris Snook <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Because atomic operations are generally used for synchronization, which requires
> > volatile behavior. Most such codepaths currently use an inefficient barrier().
> > Some forget to and we get bugs, because people assume that atomic_read()
> > actually reads something, and atomic_write() actually writes something. Worse,
> > these are architecture-specific, even compiler version-specific bugs that are
> > often difficult to track down.
>
> I'm yet to see a single example from the current tree where
> this patch series is the correct solution. So far the only
> example has been a buggy piece of code which has since been
> fixed with a cpu_relax.
Btw.: we still have
include/asm-i386/mach-es7000/mach_wakecpu.h: while (!atomic_read(deassert));
include/asm-i386/mach-default/mach_wakecpu.h: while (!atomic_read(deassert));
Looks like they need to be fixed as well.
-
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]
