On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ah, thanks, but can we just use my earlier patch that does the
> proper __bit_spin_unlock which is provided by
> bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch
Ok.
> This primitive should have a better chance at being correct, and
> also potentially be more optimised for each architecture (it
> only has to provide release consistency).
Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my knowledge
there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid a full fence
instruction there.
> I have attached the patch here just for reference, but actually
> I am submitting it properly as part of a patch series today, now
> that the base bit lock patches have been sent upstream.
Good. Andrew: Drop my patch when this goes in.
-
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]
