On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 08:02:50PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > So now it's time to start asking questions. Just jumping in at a place I felt I > knew pretty well back in 2.2.13, I'm now looking at the 2.4.0 getblk, and I see > it's changed somewhat. Finding and removing a block from the free list is now > bracketed by a spinlock pair. First question: why do we use atomic_set to set > the initial buffer use count if this is already protected by a spinlock? The buffer use count needs to be atomic in other places because interrupts may change it on UP. atomic_t can only be modified by atomic_* functions and atomic.h is lacking a "atomic_set_nonatomic". So even when you only need the atomic property once you have to change all uses of the field. -Andi -- This is like TV. I don't like TV.
- Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Tigran Aivazian
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.... Tigran Aivazian
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Andi Kleen
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Matthew Wilcox
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Steve Dodd
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.0 Daniel Phillips
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.... Gary Funck
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in ... Andi Kleen
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache... Gary Funck
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page ... Andi Kleen
- Re: Questions about the buffer+p... Gary Funck
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in ... Kurt Garloff
- Re: Questions about the buffer+page cache in 2.4.... Daniel Phillips