From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, ying.huang@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz,
nigel@nigel.suspend2.net, rjw@sisk.pl, vgoyal@redhat.com,
mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kexec@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec jump: fix compiling warning on xchg(&kexec_lock, 0) in kernel_kexec()
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:13:13 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808131310450.3462@nehalem.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080813130749.c406ab6c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Nope. That needs to be an "unsigned long".
>
> It is.
Gaah. I just misread the patch, sorry.
> Used a bitop to preserve the runtime checking in there. spin_unlock()
> doesn't return the previous lockedness.
Umm. spin_unlock does a lot more when you have lock debugging on, and
doesn't do useless crap when it isn't.
> A bitop seems a better fit to me. We never spin on that lock (it
> always uses test_and_set), so why use a "spin"lock?
..because an atomic bitop is not the same as a lock.
The memory ordering guarantees are different. Yes, they are sufficient,
but that's because we've had to make them so to account for CRAP CODE that
uses bit operations as if they were locks.
Don't continue that. It's WRONG.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-13 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-13 9:12 Huang Ying
2008-08-13 9:27 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-13 17:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-13 17:25 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-13 17:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-13 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-13 18:12 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-08-13 18:31 ` Vivek Goyal
2008-08-13 19:44 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-13 19:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-13 20:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-13 20:13 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-08-13 20:25 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-13 20:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-13 20:41 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-13 21:21 ` Vivek Goyal
2008-08-13 22:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-08-13 20:15 ` Trond Myklebust
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.1.10.0808131310450.3462@nehalem.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nigel@nigel.suspend2.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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®