David Howells wrote:
Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To head off the criticism, I admit this is an oversimplification, and true
busy-waiters should be using cpu_relax(), which contains a barrier.
Why would you want to use cpu_relax()? That's there to waste time efficiently,
isn't it? Shouldn't you be using smp_rmb() or something like that?
David
cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For
non-smp architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt
handlers. Some drivers do use atomic_* operations.
-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
