On Friday 24 August 2007 13:59:32 Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thursday 16 August 2007 01:39, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > static inline void wait_for_init_deassert(atomic_t *deassert)
> > {
> > - while (!atomic_read(deassert));
> > + while (!atomic_read(deassert))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > return;
> > }
>
> For less-than-briliant people like me, it's totally non-obvious that
> cpu_relax() is needed for correctness here, not just to make P4 happy.
I find it also non obvious. It would be really better to have a barrier
or equivalent (volatile or variable clobber) in the atomic_read()
> IOW: "atomic_read" name quite unambiguously means "I will read
> this variable from main memory". Which is not true and creates
> potential for confusion and bugs.
Agreed.
-Andi
-
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]
