Re: [PATCH] WorkStruct: Implement generic UP cmpxchg() where an archdoesn't support it

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Russell King wrote:

> As proven previously the reverse is also true.  And as shown previously
> the cheaper out of the two for all platforms is the LL/SC based
> implementation, where the architecture specific implementation can
> be _either_ LL/SC based or cmpxchg based depending on what is
> supported in their hardware.

As also shown in this thread: There are restrictions on what you can do 
between ll/sc. You would not want to use C code there. ll/sc is an thing 
that needs to be restricted to asm code. So this is not a viable proposal 
at all. ll/sc is useful to construct various atomic functions but cannot 
be directly used in C code. cmpxchg can be effectively realized using 
ll/sc.
-
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/