Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] qspinlock: Introducing a 4-byte queue spinlockimplementation

[Waiman Long]

On 08/29/2013 01:03 PM, Alexander Fyodorov wrote:
> 29.08.2013, 19:25, "Waiman Long"<waiman.long@xxxxxx>:
> > What I have been thinking is to set a flag in an architecture specific
> > header file to tell if the architecture need a memory barrier. The
> > generic code will then either do a smp_mb() or barrier() depending on
> > the presence or absence of the flag. I would prefer to do more in the
> > generic code, if possible.
> If you use flag then you'll have to check it manually. It is better to add new smp_mb variant, I suggest calling it smp_mb_before_store(), and define it to barrier() on x86.

I am sorry that I was not clear in my previous mail. I mean a flag/macro 
for compile time checking rather than doing runtime checking.

Regards,
Longman
--
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/