Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:11:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:11:41 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:22283 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:11:40 -0500 Subject: RE: [PATCH 2.5.52] Use __set_current_state() instead of current-> state = (take 1) From: Robert Love To: "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1040267987.848.130.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Date: 18 Dec 2002 22:19:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 951 Lines: 27 On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 21:40, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote: > Well, I think it makes kind of sense. If we know we are > returning to some place where nothing bad could happen > with reordering ... well, so be it, don't use __set_...() Oh, I see. If it returns to somewhere that immediately e.g. puts it on a wait queue. In that case, yep: need the barrier version. > And that would now really work when CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE=1 is required > [after all, it is a write, so it'd need the equivalent of a wmb() or > xchg()]. Is this a hint that your employer may have an x86 chip in the future with weak ordering? :) > Okay, changing that one too, just in case. Good - better safe than sorry. Robert Love - 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/