Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask

• Next message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] hangcheck-timer"
• Previous message: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?"
• In reply to: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask"
• Next in thread: Zwane Mwaikambo: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask"
• Reply: Zwane Mwaikambo: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Manfred Spraul wrote:

> from 2.5.52, <asm-i386/atomic.h>
> #define atomic_read(v) ((v)->counter)
> AFAIK atomic_read never contained locked bus cycles.
>
> Btw, Zwane, what about removing non_atomic from the prototype?

The funny thing is, there are about 3 different versions of
smp_call_function and removing nonatomic would reduce the argument count
(there are some architectures which use 'retry' in nonatomic's place) and
i'm a bit wary of making other archs bend over for i386 these days.
Perhaps renaming it to __unused or something similarly obvious.

        Zwane

-- 
function.linuxpower.ca
-
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/

• Next message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] hangcheck-timer"
• Previous message: Horst von Brand: "Re: Is the BitKeeper network protocol documented?"
• In reply to: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask"
• Next in thread: Zwane Mwaikambo: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask"
• Reply: Zwane Mwaikambo: "Re: [PATCH][2.5] smp_call_function_mask"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:26 EST