Andrea> On 30 Sep 1999, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> atomic_foo() should be ordered, at least that the idea behind it as
Andrea> It isn't. Also the atomic_inc/dec and set_bit clear_bit
Andrea> aren't.
Andrea> Only test_and_*_bit and atomic_dec_and_test enforce ordering
Andrea> between previous and following code.
Aren't according to what architecture? Some architectures can only
implement these by using a spin lock, thus they will certainly ensure
ordering. My point here is, should we specify these functions to
guarantee ordering, yes or no?
Intuitively I think it makes sense to do so, and I doubt it will be a
performance hit at all, but I am just guessing here.
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/