Re: [PATCH 4/4] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that only one fastmap work is scheduled

[Richard Weinberger]

Am 30.09.2014 09:39, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 08:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Am 30.09.2014 08:45, schrieb Bityutskiy, Artem:
>>> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 00:20 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>> +       spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock);
>>>> +       ubi->fm_work_scheduled = 0;
>>>> +       spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock);
>>>
>>> Andrew Morton once said me that if I am protecting an integer change
>>> like this with a spinlock, I have a problem in my locking design. He was
>>> right for my particular case.
>>>
>>> Integer is changes atomic. The only other thing spinlock adds are the
>>> barriers.
>>
>> I've added the spinlock to have a barrier in any case.
> 
> Examples of any?

You mean a case where the compiler would reorder code and the barrier is needed?
I don't have one, but I'm not that creative as a modern C compiler.
If you say that no barrier is needed I'll trust you. :-)

Thanks,
//richard

--
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/