On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 17:27, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> What is the preferred way to achieve atomicity in an operation now that
> cli() and sti() are gone?
spin locks.
> The point of asm-generic is not to use the files, but to give porters a
> hint about the functionality. Quoting asm-generic/bitops.h:
>
> /* For the benefit of those who are trying to port Linux to another
> * architecture, here are some C-language equivalents. You should
> * recode these in the native assembly language, if at all possible.
> * To guarantee atomicity, these routines call cli() and sti() to
> * disable interrupts while they operate. (You have to provide inline
> * routines to cli() and sti().) */
>
> Or is this comment wrong, too?
Well, the cli() and sti() part is definitely wrong for 2.5.
It is wrong though to assume that nothing will use these; someone may
copy them directly (and then they do not work) or someone may #include
this file.
I like Arnd's suggestion to just remove these functions and all other
instances of them -- assuming in fact they are never used.
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 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:37 EST