Hi!
> > > [I hope the ACKs still apply.]
> >
> > Uhuh, not 100% sure.
> >
> > > +static int usermodehelper_disabled;
> > > +
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > 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.
Are you sure? I thought atomic variables have barrirers built-in.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/
