Re: [RFC PATCH] introduce sys_membarrier(): process-wide memory barrier(v5)

[David Daney]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Nicholas Miell (nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:24 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Nicholas Miell (nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > >
> > > > The whole point of compat and incompat flags is that it allows new
> > > > applications to run on old kernels and either work or fail as
> > > > appropriate, depending on whether the new features they're using must be
> > > > implemented or can be silently ignored.
> > > I see. Thanks for the explanation. Then the expedited flag should
> > > clearly be part of the mandatory flags.
> > >
> > > Can you point me to other system calls that are doing this ?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Mathieu
> > Not off the top of my head, but I did steal the idea from the ext2/3/4
> > disk format.
>
> Sounds a bit over-engineered to me for system calls, but who knows if we
> eventually have to extend sys_membarrier(). This involves that, right
> now, I'd have to add a header to include/linux to define these flags.
> Also, "int expedited" is a bit clearer, but less flexible, than "int
> flags". Anyone else have comments about this ?

It doesn't bother me that you have to do extra work to add the flag 
definitions to a header file. :-)

As I understand it, the proposal is to have the option to extend the ABI 
based on as yet undefined flag bits.  This doesn't seem like a bad thing.

The runtime overhead of testing a single bit vs. non-zero in the 
parameter shouldn't be an issue.

David Daney
--
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/