On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:52:20PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > And for those of us with only load-and-zero, that's simply: > > > > #define load_locked(addr) spin_lock(hash(addr)), *addr > > #define store_exclusive(addr, old, new) \ > > *addr = new, spin_unlock(hash(addr)), 0 > > > > which is also optimal for us. > > This means we tolerate the assignment race for SMP that was pointed out > earlier?
What gave you that impression? It simply wasn't part of this example. To be honest, it'd be much easier if we only defined these operations on atomic_t's. We have all the infrastructure in place for them, and they're fairly well understood. If you need different sizes, I'm OK with an atomic_pointer_t, or whatever. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
