Re: [PATCH] memory ordering in __kfifo primitives
From: Stelian Pop
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 10:24:46 EST
Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 06:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> I am happy to go either way -- the patch with the memory barriers
> (which does have the side-effect of slowing down kfifo_get() and
> kfifo_put(), by the way), or a patch removing the comments saying
> that it is OK to invoke __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put() without
> Any other thoughts on which is better? (1) the memory barriers or
> (2) requiring the caller hold appropriate locks across calls to
> __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put()?
If someone wants to use explicit locking, he/she can go with kfifo_get()
instead of the __ version.
I'd rather keep the __kfifo_get() and __kfifo_put() functions lockless,
so I say go for (1) even if there is a tiny price to pay for corectness.
Stelian Pop <stelian@xxxxxxxxxx>
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/