On Sun, 13 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:15:03PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > Hmm, well, I think that's fairly horrid, and would it even be > > guaranteed to work on all architectures? Playing with one char > > of an unsigned long in one way, while playing with the whole of > > the unsigned long in another way (bitops) sounds very dodgy to me. > > Of course not, but they can just use a regular atomic word sized > bitop. The problem with i386 is that its atomic ops also imply > memory barriers that you obviously don't need on unlock.
But is it even a valid procedure on i386? Hugh - 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/
