>
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 07:03:37PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > I don't *like* making Alpha's wmb() stronger, but it is the
> > only solution which doesn't touch common code.
>
> It's not a "solution" at all. It's so heavy weight you'd be
> much better off with locks. Just use the damned rmb_me_harder.
rmb_me_harder? smp_mb__{before,after}_{atomic_dec,clear_bit} are already ugly enough.
What about hiding all these details in the list access macros? list_insert, list_get_next, etc. With a default implementation based
on a spinlock, and the capable SMP architectures could define an optimized version.
Then Alpha could do whatever flushing is required. But please do not scatter memory barrier instructions all around the kernel.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:26 EST