Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:16:12 -0400 | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlock implementation |
| |
On 08/29/2013 01:03 PM, Alexander Fyodorov wrote: > 29.08.2013, 19:25, "Waiman Long"<waiman.long@hp.com>: >> What I have been thinking is to set a flag in an architecture specific >> header file to tell if the architecture need a memory barrier. The >> generic code will then either do a smp_mb() or barrier() depending on >> the presence or absence of the flag. I would prefer to do more in the >> generic code, if possible. > If you use flag then you'll have to check it manually. It is better to add new smp_mb variant, I suggest calling it smp_mb_before_store(), and define it to barrier() on x86.
I am sorry that I was not clear in my previous mail. I mean a flag/macro for compile time checking rather than doing runtime checking.
Regards, Longman
| |