Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: 2.6.38 updates

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 02/11/2011 02:15 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> 
> a bit of history...
> 
> For the disabled jump label case, we didn't want to incur an atomic_read() to
> check if the branch was enabled.
> 
> So, I separated the API, to have one for the non-atomic case, and one
> for the atomic case. Nobody liked that.
> 
> So now, I'm proposing to leave the core API based around a non-atomic
> variable, and have any callers that want to use this atomic interface,
> to call into the non-atomic interface. If another user besides perf
> wants to use the same type of atomic interface, we can re-visit the
> decsion? 
> 

What is the problem with taking the atomic_read()?

	-hpa
--
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/