Andrew Morton wrote:
The code forgot to initialise all of these.
It just so happens that the all-bits-zero pattern works correctly for all
current architectures, so the code should work OK. But there is no reason
(I hope) why an architecture cannot implement atomic_t as
struct atomic_t {
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:32:20 -0600
Corey Minyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Konstantin Baydarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Atomics are a lot more efficient and neat than using a lock.
>
Yes, but...
> +struct ipmi_stats
> +{
> + /* Commands we got that were invalid. */
> +
From: Konstantin Baydarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Atomics are a lot more efficient and neat than using a lock.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Baydarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Index: linux-2.6.24/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
From: Konstantin Baydarov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Atomics are a lot more efficient and neat than using a lock.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Baydarov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Corey Minyard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Index: linux-2.6.24/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:32:20 -0600
Corey Minyard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Konstantin Baydarov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Atomics are a lot more efficient and neat than using a lock.
Yes, but...
+struct ipmi_stats
+{
+ /* Commands we got that were invalid. */
+ atomic_t
Andrew Morton wrote:
The code forgot to initialise all of these.
It just so happens that the all-bits-zero pattern works correctly for all
current architectures, so the code should work OK. But there is no reason
(I hope) why an architecture cannot implement atomic_t as
struct atomic_t {
6 matches
Mail list logo
