On Friday 04 January 2008 00:36, Zoltan Menyhart wrote: > Please have a look at the patch below.
OK, I just had a couple of comments... > Taking this opportunity, in addition: > - I removed the useless "volatile" stuff from the non-atomic versions > of the bit operations. This is a relatively big thing to be doing. I actually want to remove all volatiles (except maybe in special accessor functions) from the kernel, so great :) However it needs to be in a separate patch, and it needs to be done for all architectures and asm-generic to spread out the burden of testing. You should also cc lkml and Linus on that one. Make it on top of the __clear_bit_unlock work, so the ia64 specific patch doesn't get held up. > - I removed the unnecessary barrier() from __clear_bit_unlock(). > ia64_st4_rel_nta() makes sure all the modifications are globally > seen before the bit is seen to be off. Fine. I guess it doesn't need a comment because you ia64 guys know this intimately. > - I made __clear_bit() modeled after __set_bit() and __change_bit(). > - I corrected some comments sating that a memory barrier is provided, > yet in reality, it is the acquisition side of the memory barrier only. > - I corrected some comments, e.g. test_and_clear_bit() was peaking > about "bit to set". > > Signed-off-by: Zoltan Menyhart, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I guess removing the acquire barrier from close to the release barrier is a good idea. I won't ask for performance numbers because I guess they are too hard to get a meaningful number for such a small and obviously better change. It would just be good to know that code size ends up being as small or smaller. Anyway, I don't want to actually say ack to the ia64 parts without having done any compilation or testing myself, but I would like especially the volatile change to be moved. I guess Tony does too :) Thanks, Nick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
