On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 05:55:09PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Note that the "fixup" approach is not necessarily very painful at all, > from a performance standpoint (either on 386 or on newer CPU's). It's not > really that hard to just replace the instruction in the "undefined > instruction" handler by having strict rules about how to use the "xadd" > instruction. Fixup for user space is probably not that nice (CMPXCHG is used there by linuxthreads) -Andi - 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/
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix David Weinehall
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix David Weinehall
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Linus Torvalds
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox
- Re: [PATCH] i386 rw_semaphores fix Alan Cox