> From: Christoph Lameter > On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Zoltan Menyhart wrote: > > > > > However, I do not think your implementation would be > efficient due > > > to selecting the ordering mode at run time: > > > > > > > + switch (mode) { > > > > + case MODE_NONE : > > > > + case MODE_ACQUIRE : > > > > + return cmpxchg_acq(m, old, new); > > > > + case MODE_FENCE : > > > > + smp_mb(); > > > > + /* Fall through */ > > > > + case MODE_RELEASE : > > > > + return cmpxchg_rel(m, old, new); > > > > > > > BTW. Isn't MODE_FENCE wrong? Seems like a read or write > could be moved > > above cmpxchg_rel? > > Hmmm.... We should call this MODE_BARRIER I guess... > I arrived at the conclusion that "fence" is a better term, at least in user-level code. "Barrier" seems to generate confusion with "pthread_barrier_wait" and similar constructs, which are a different kind of beast. Hans - : 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
![]() |