Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store

From: Christoph Hellwig <>
Date: 2005-04-30 01:51:53
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:48:43AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
>   >> Yes, but _if_ it's a good idea to use .nta with GCC, there is no
>   >> reason not to do the same with ICC.  Don't introduce unnecessary
>   >> divergence.
>   Christoph> The same situation of .nta only for GCC already exists
>   Christoph> for regular spinlocks as a result of my nta unlock patch
>   Christoph> that I posted a week or so ago.
> And that's an argument to make the situation worse?  How about
> cleaning up the previous patch instead?

I don't think it's fair to expect contributors to fix up ifdef'ed bits for
a propritary compiler.  If HP and Intel care about it they can add the
features for icc later.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Fri Apr 29 11:52:12 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:37 EST