RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:51:21 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Zoltan Menyhart <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxxx>, "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@xxxxxx>, "Grundler, Grant G" <grant.grundler@xxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <200603310049.k2V0nVg26779@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <200603310049.k2V0nVg26779@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> > It precise the uncleanness in ia64 that such semantics are attached to
> > these bit operations which may lead people to depend on those. We need to
> > either make these explicit or not depend on them.
>
> 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.
-
: 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]