On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 06:41:25PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 20 September 2004 23:57, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 01:49:20PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
I think it shouldn't be this way.
OTOH for !CONFIG_386 case it makes perfect sense to have it inlined.
Would the following revised patch be acceptable?
You would need an EXPORT_SYMBOL at least. But to be honest your
original patch was much simpler and nicer and cmpxchg is not called
that often that it really matters. I would just ignore Denis' suggestion and stay with the old patch.
A bit faster approach (for CONFIG_386 case) would be using
It's actually slower. Many x86 CPUs cannot predict indirect jumps
and those that do cannot predict them as well as a test and jump.