On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:58:20PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > No. If you read what I said, you'll see that you can _cheaply_ use > cmpxchg in a ll/sc based implementation. Take an atomic increment > operation. > > do { > old = load_locked(addr); > } while (store_exclusive(old, old + 1, addr);
[...] > Implementing ll/sc based accessor macros allows both ll/sc _and_ cmpxchg > architectures to produce optimal code. > > Implementing an cmpxchg based accessor macro allows cmpxchg architectures > to produce optimal code and ll/sc non-optimal code. And for those of us with only load-and-zero, that's simply: #define load_locked(addr) spin_lock(hash(addr)), *addr #define store_exclusive(addr, old, new) \ *addr = new, spin_unlock(hash(addr)), 0 which is also optimal for us. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/