bad example in Documentation/atomic_ops.txt ?
From: Artem Bityutskiy
Date: Fri May 23 2008 - 11:02:52 EST
I it looks like the example in the Documentation/atomic_ops.txt
file at line 232 is not quite right. The obj->active = 0 will
be delayed, but not further than spin_unlock() in obj_timeout().
Becaus spin_unlock() has a memory barrier.
I guess you would need to move spin_lock(&global_list_lock) to
obj_list_del() to make the example valid.
This confused me when I read the file.
Artem Bityutskiy (ÐÑÑÑÐ ÐÐÑÑÑÐÐÐ)
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/