Hi all,
I came across a question when review other's module code.
something like:
int __init module_init()
{
down_interruptible(the_big_module_sem);
// code for init...
up(the_big_module_sem);
}
void __exit module_exit()
{
down_interruptible(the_big_module_sem);
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:10:16 +0200
Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it
> > clear?
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
I have read this article before, but What Linus said only focusing on
the conclusion-- The
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> >
> > Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to
> > be
> > volatile. This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually r
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:47:53 -0400
Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Chris Snook wrote:
> >
> >> This is not a problem, since indirect references will cause the CPU to
> >> fetch the data from memory/cache anyway.
> >
> > Isn't Zan's sample code (that shows the p
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:47:53 -0400
Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
> > Chris Snook wrote:
> >
> >> This is not a problem, since indirect references will cause the CPU to
> >> fetch the data from memory/cache anyway.
> >
> > Isn't Zan's sample code (that shows the p
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:32:23 -0400
Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems like this would fall more into the case of the arch providing
> > guarantees when using locked/atomic access rather than anything
> > SMP-related, no?.
>
> But if you're not using SMP, the only way you get a
Is there some feedback on this point ?
Thank you
./Jerry
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> prompted by the earlier post on "volatile"s, is there a reason that
> most atomic_t typedefs use volatile int's, while the rest don't?
>
> $ grep
When I update my kernel to 2.6.20-rc6, I find I can not move the map
smoothly in the Google Earth (V4).
I do not try any test on this issue. just put it to maillist.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majord
8 matches
Mail list logo
