Re: [PATCH] generalized spin_lock_bit

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 19:26:25 EST


On Sat, 2002-07-20 at 23:27, David S. Miller wrote:
> Why not just use the existing bitops implementation? The code is
> going to be mostly identical, ala:
>
> while (test_and_set_bit(ptr, nr)) {
> while (test_bit(ptr, nr))
> barrier();
> }

Firstly your code is wrong for Intel already

Secondly many platforms want to implement their locks in other ways.
Atomic bitops are an x86 luxury so your proposal simply generates
hideously inefficient code compared to arch specific sanity

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:34 EST