RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2

From: Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen_at_intel.com>
Date: 2006-03-31 11:59:52
Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:51 PM
> > > 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.
> 
> That would make the behavior of clear_bit different from other bitops and 
> references to volatile pointers. I'd like to have this as consistent as 
> possible.

Yeah, but we just agreed that caller shouldn't be thinking clear_bit has
memory ordering at all.

- 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 11:59:58 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-31 12:01:07 EST