* Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg()
[not found] <200612092059.kB9Kx1NC010199@hera.kernel.org>
@ 2006-12-09 22:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt @ 2006-12-09 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells; +Cc: Linux Kernel list
> The problem is where we end up tangling with test_and_set_bit() emulated
> using spinlocks, and even then it's not a problem _provided_
> test_and_set_bit() doesn't attempt to modify the word if the bit was
> set.
I'm not 100% sure what is the problem there, but beware that bitops
don't provide the same semantics as spinlocks regarding memory ordering.
Ben.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2006-12-09 22:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <200612092059.kB9Kx1NC010199@hera.kernel.org>
2006-12-09 22:19 ` [PATCH] WorkStruct: Use direct assignment rather than cmpxchg() Benjamin Herrenschmidt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®