lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> > > I know, I'm saying since it doesn't make any difference from API point of
> > > view whether it is acq, rel, or no ordering, then just make them rel as a
> > > "preferred" Operation on ia64.
> >
> > That would make the behavior of clear_bit different from other bitops and
> > references to volatile pointers. I'd like to have this as consistent as
> > possible.
>
> Yeah, but we just agreed that caller shouldn't be thinking clear_bit has
> memory ordering at all.

In general yes the caller should not be thinking about clear_bit having
any memory ordering at all. However for IA64 arch specific code the bit
operations must have a certain ordering semantic and it would be best that
these are also consistent. clear_bit is not a lock operation and may
f.e. be used for locking something.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-31 03:12    [W:0.078 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site