On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > We don't need to create that local. I queued this: > > No, please don't. > > Just don't take this whole patch-series until it's cleaned up. We already took it - in 2.6.13! > There is > absolutely no excuse for using xchg as a locking primitive. Nothing like > this should be queued anywhere, it should be burned and the ashes should > be scattered over the atlantic so that nobody will ever see them again. > > F*ck me with a spoon, if you have to use xchg() to do a trylock, why the > hell isn't the unlock sequence then > > smp_mb(); > var = 0; > > instead? Not that that's really right either, but at least it avoids the > _ridiculous_ crap. The real solution is probably to use a spinlock and > trylock/unlock. > Or test_and_set_bit(). That's what I've been saying too, only differently ;) But cleaning up the long-standing silly usage of xchg() is a different activity from suppressing this recently-added compile warning.
