(sorry for being offtpoic, but while experts are here...)
A "typical" implementation of atomic_add_unless() can return 0 immediately
after the first atomic_read() (before doing cmpxchg). In that case it doesn't
provide any barrier semantics. See include/asm-ia64/atomic.h as an example.
We should either change the implementation, or fix the docs.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Documentation/atomic_ops.txt | 3 ++-
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- t/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt~doc_aau 2008-01-14 23:43:11.000000000
+0300
+++ t/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt 2008-02-23 23:53:12.000000000 +0300
@@ -186,7 +186,8 @@ If the atomic value v is not equal to u,
returns non zero. If v is equal to u then it returns zero. This is done as
an atomic operation.
-atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation.
+atomic_add_unless requires explicit memory barriers around the operation
+unless it fails (returns 0).
atomic_inc_not_zero, equivalent to atomic_add_unless(v, 1, 0)
--- t/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt~doc_aau 2008-01-14 23:43:11.000000000
+0300
+++ t/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt 2008-02-23 23:53:12.000000000 +0300
@@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ explicit lock operations, described late
atomic_dec_and_test();
atomic_sub_and_test();
atomic_add_negative();
- atomic_add_unless();
+ atomic_add_unless(); /* when succeeds (returns 1) */
test_and_set_bit();
test_and_clear_bit();
test_and_change_bit();
--
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/
