Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()
From: Andreas Schwab
Date: Thu Jun 16 2016 - 08:53:29 EST
- Next message: Tetsuo Handa: "Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem"
- Previous message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()"
- In reply to: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()"
- Next in thread: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:43:29PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > +/*
>> >> > + * Am I reading these CAS loops right in that %2 is the old value and the first
>> >> > + * iteration uses an uninitialized value?
>> >> > + *
>> >> > + * Would it not make sense to add: tmp = atomic_read(v); to avoid this?
>> >> > + */
>
>> No, there is nothing to fix here.
>
> OK, care to elucidate? Clearly I need help reading this.
grep '2.*atomic_read'
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
- Next message: Tetsuo Handa: "Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm, oom: fortify task_will_free_mem"
- Previous message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()"
- In reply to: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()"
- Next in thread: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [PATCH -v2 14/33] locking,m68k: Implement atomic_fetch_{add,sub,and,or,xor}()"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]