On 06/26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, 25 June 2007 23:55, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > case PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE: > > > case PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE: > > > usermodehelper_disabled = 1; > > > - return NOTIFY_OK; > > > + smp_mb(); > > > > usermodehelper_disabled should be atomic variable, too, so we don't > > have to play these ugly tricks by hand? This should not be > > performance-critical, right? > > Well, I think we'd need to add the barriers anyway. > > The problem, as far as I understand it, is that the instructions can get > reordered if there are no barriers in there.
Yes, and it doesn't help if we make usermodehelper_disabled atomic_t. atomic_xxx() operations do not imply the memory barrier semantics. Oleg. - 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/
