On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:38:23 +0100
Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2007 15:51, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:56:29 +0100
> > Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> 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.
>
> After inspecting arch/*, I cannot agree with you.
the arch/ people obviously are allowed to do their own locking stuff...
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THAT!
the arch maintainers know EXACTLY how their hw behaves (well, we hope)
so they tend to be the exception to many rules in the kernel....
-
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]
