Re: [PATCH 3/4]percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems

[Shaohua Li]

On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:50 +0800, tj@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello, guys.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:03:01AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > I can do this, but please give a reason. If network code is the only
> > place requiring disable irq, why not network code do it?
> 
> This thread is pointless.  The next patch converts it to atomic64_t
> and the lock is removed anyway.  I think Eric's argument makes sense
> given that atomic64_t translates into irqsave spinlock (it has to) in
> generic 32bit implementation.  That said, this is all a moot point.
> We might as well simply drop this patch and directly convert to
> atomic64_t.
We need it for UP case anyway. Ok, I'll change it to irqsave in next
post.

Thanks,
Shaohua

--
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/