Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2005-04-30 02:01:14
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:51:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig <> said:

  Christoph> 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?

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

I don't think this is about proprietary vs non-proprietary.  It's
about whether the code is clean.  I'd _love_ to get rid of inline asm
in the future when GCC supports intrinsics since that could lead to
significantly improved code.

(And no, I don't expect Chris to necessarily fix up the ICC bits, though
 a reasonable best-effort wouldn't take much time.)

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 12:10:47 2005

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