On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:25 AM, David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Is it worth considering a move towards using C11 atomics and barriers and > compiler intrinsics inside the kernel? The compiler _ought_ to be able to do > these.
I think that's a bad idea as a generic implementation, but it's quite possibly worth doing on an architecture-by-architecture basis. The thing is, gcc builtins sometimes suck. Sometimes it's because certain architectures want particular gcc versions that don't do a good job, sometimes it's because the architecture doesn't lend itself to doing what we want done and we end up better off with some tweaked thing, sometimes it's because the language feature is just badly designed. I'm not convinced that the C11 people got things right. But in specific cases, maybe the architecture wants to use the builtin. And the gcc version checks are likely to be architecture-specific for a longish while. So some particular architectures might want to use them, but I really doubt it makes sense to make it the default with arch overrides. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/