> > Thanks Robert for the reply.
> > But I notice that __set_current_state() is same as current->state. So, I
> > didn't understand the safety factor on using __set_current_state( ).
>
> There is no safety with __set_current_state(). It is just an
> abstraction.
>
> The safety comes from set_current_state(), which ensures memory
> ordering.
>
> This is an issue not just on SMP, but on a weakly ordered processor like
> Alpha.
>
> > Also why should I use __set_current_state() instead of
> set_current_state()
> > when the later is SMP safe.
>
> You only use __set_current_state() if you know you do not need to ensure
> memory ordering constraints.
Man, I forgot how many times I have already posted the patch to fix this ...
Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own
(and my fault)
-
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 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:35 EST