RE: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@xxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Fix unlock_buffer() to work the same way as bit_unlock()
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:17:45 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: "Grundler, Grant G" <grant.grundler@xxxxxx>, "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <65953E8166311641A685BDF71D865826A23D0E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <65953E8166311641A685BDF71D865826A23D0E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Boehm, Hans wrote:
> Somewhat improved slides for the talk Grant is referring to are at
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/misc_slides/pldi05_threads.pdf
Hmm.. A paper on that subject would be better. Cannot get much from the
slides.
> It's hard to get this stuff right. But we knew that.
Could you come up with a proposal how to correctly define and API to bit
ops in such a way that they work for all architectures and allow us to
utilize all the features that processors may have?
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]
