Christoph Lameter wrote on Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:51 PM > > > 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. Yeah, but we just agreed that caller shouldn't be thinking clear_bit has memory ordering at all. - Ken - : 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
|