Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an arch doesn't support it

[Russell King]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 11:37:45AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Russell King wrote:
> > 
> > I utterly disagree.  I could code atomic_add() as:
> 
> Sure. And Alpha could do that too. If you write the C code a specific way, 
> you can make it work. That does NOT mean that you can expose it widely as 
> a portable interface - it's still just a very _nonportable_ interface that 
> you use internally within one architecture to implement other interfaces.

However, nothing stops you wrapping the non-portable nature of ll/sc up
into the store part though.

If you can efficiently implement cmpxchg inside an ll/sc based portable
interface (yes you can) and you can implement problematical ll/sc
structures inside a cmpxchg() interface, you can do it either way around.
Only one way doesn't penalise broken ll/sc based implementations though.

That is the essence of my argument.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
-
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/