On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:49:03PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Because atomic operations are generally used for synchronization, which > > requires > > volatile behavior. Most such codepaths currently use an inefficient > > barrier(). > > Some forget to and we get bugs, because people assume that atomic_read() > > actually reads something, and atomic_write() actually writes something. > > Worse, > > these are architecture-specific, even compiler version-specific bugs that > > are > > often difficult to track down. > > I'm yet to see a single example from the current tree where > this patch series is the correct solution. So far the only > example has been a buggy piece of code which has since been > fixed with a cpu_relax.
Btw.: we still have include/asm-i386/mach-es7000/mach_wakecpu.h: while (!atomic_read(deassert)); include/asm-i386/mach-default/mach_wakecpu.h: while (!atomic_read(deassert)); Looks like they need to be fixed as well. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
