Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > And for those of us with only load-and-zero, that's simply:
> > 
> > #define load_locked(addr) spin_lock(hash(addr)), *addr
> > #define store_exclusive(addr, old, new) \
> > 			*addr = new, spin_unlock(hash(addr)), 0
> > 
> > which is also optimal for us.
> 
> This means we tolerate the assignment race for SMP that was pointed out 
> earlier?

What gave you that impression?  It simply wasn't part of this example.

To be honest, it'd be much easier if we only defined these operations on
atomic_t's.  We have all the infrastructure in place for them, and
they're fairly well understood.  If you need different sizes, I'm OK
with an atomic_pointer_t, or whatever.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/