On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:56:29 +0100 Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Well, if you insist on having it again: > > Waiting for atomic value to be zero: > > while (atomic_read(&x)) > continue; > and this I would say is buggy code all the way. Not from a pure C level semantics, but from a "busy waiting is buggy" semantics level and a "I'm inventing my own locking" semantics level. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- Next by Date: Re: [Lksctp-developers] [-mm patch] net/sctp/socket.c: make 3 variables static
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Document non-semantics of atomic_read() and atomic_set()
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Index(es):
 |