Am 30.09.2014 09:39, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem: > On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem: >>> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: >>>> + spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock); >>>> + ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0; >>>> + spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock); >>> >>> Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change >>> like this with a spinlock, I have a problem in my locking design. He was >>> right for my particular case. >>> >>> Integer is changes atomic. The only other thing spinlock adds are the >>> barriers. >> >> I've added the spinlock to have a barrier in any case. > > Examples of any?
You mean a case where the compiler would reorder code and the barrier is needed? I don't have one, but I'm not that creative as a modern C compiler. If you say that no barrier is needed I'll trust you. :-) Thanks, //richard -- 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/
