RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2

From: Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen_at_intel.com>
Date: 2006-03-31 11:50:15
Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:45 PM
> > I would make that MODE_RELEASE for clear_bit, simply to match the
> > observation that clear_bit is usually used in unlock path and have
> > potential less surprises.
> 
> clear_bit per se is defined as an atomic operation with no implications 
> for release or acquire. If it is used for release then either add the 
> appropriate barrier or use MODE_RELEASE explicitly.
> 
> It precise the uncleanness in ia64 that such semantics are attached to 
> these bit operations which may lead people to depend on those. We need to 
> either make these explicit or not depend on them.

I know, I'm saying since it doesn't make any difference from API point of
view whether it is acq, rel, or no ordering, then just make them rel as a
"preferred" Operation on ia64.

- Ken
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Mar 31 11:50:07 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-31 11:51:16 EST