Re: [block IO crash] Re: 2.6.39-rc5-git2 boot crashs

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The naming convention came about from the existing this_cpu_xxx
> operations

You're missing my point.

An "add" operation makes sense even if it isn't atomic, because
atomicity isn't a part of the definition of "add".

But cmpxchg DOES NOT MAKE SENSE without atomicity guarantees.

The whole operation is about atomicity.

Having a version that isn't atomic is STUPID. It's misleading. It's _wrong_.

In contrast, having a non-atomic "add" version is understandable.

So when  you say "naming convention", you're missing the much bigger
naming convention. Namely the "cmpxchg" part!

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