In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205130938380.19524-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wr
ite:
> We're _not_ going to make up a complicated, big fancy new model. We might
> tweak the current one a bit. And if that means that some architectures get
> heavier barriers than they strictly need, then so be it. There are two
> overriding concerns:
>
> - sanity: maybe it's better to have one mb() that is a sledgehammer but
> obvious, than it is to have many subtle variations that are just asking
> for subtle bugs.
NO NO NO. Look at what actually happens now:
void init_bh(int nr, void (*routine)(void))
{
bh_base[nr] = routine;
mb();
}
Now, what is this mb() for? Are you sure?
If we can come up with a better fit between the macros and what the
code are trying to actually do, we win, even if they all map to the
same thing *today*. While we're there, if we can get something that
fits with different architectures, great.
Clearer?
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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 : Tue May 14 2002 - 12:00:21 EST