On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 08:11, prash_t@softhome.net wrote:
> Thanks Robert for the reply.
> But I notice that __set_current_state() is same as current->state. So, I
> didn't understand the safety factor on using __set_current_state( ).
There is no safety with __set_current_state(). It is just an
abstraction.
The safety comes from set_current_state(), which ensures memory
ordering.
This is an issue not just on SMP, but on a weakly ordered processor like
Alpha.
> Also why should I use __set_current_state() instead of set_current_state()
> when the later is SMP safe.
You only use __set_current_state() if you know you do not need to ensure
memory ordering constraints.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:33 EST