Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760247AbXHXU1b (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:27:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759096AbXHXU1N (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:27:13 -0400 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.230]:30463 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756724AbXHXU1H (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:27:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=YBsbhn+2PUIbjn2vRjCBQo/FLUXAY/usR9dA39QFQLWYRtahXGKD4IvqEscQOUDZcX1PSO/nyRPBHz8boP3iGlzqu66K8SRvZ6V7p2kGEYMElZ/ElIu818vSBlTkywjSTVZyTI9NUxBkVmqHVF1luAYaaUpRgaHGo3rwg1WBvTU= From: Denys Vlasenko To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix a couple busy loops in mach_wakecpu.h:wait_for_init_deassert() Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:26:57 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Satyam Sharma , Heiko Carstens , Herbert Xu , Chris Snook , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , ak@suse.de, davem@davemloft.net, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au, wjiang@resilience.com, cfriesen@nortel.com, zlynx@acm.org, rpjday@mindspring.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org, Nick Piggin References: <46C2350A.1010807@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708242126.58305.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1031 Lines: 24 On Friday 24 August 2007 18:06, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > But if people do seem to have a mixed / confused notion of atomicity > > and barriers, and if there's consensus, then as I'd said earlier, I > > have no issues in going with the consensus (eg. having API variants). > > Linus would be more difficult to convince, however, I suspect :-) > > The confusion may be the result of us having barrier semantics in > atomic_read. If we take that out then we may avoid future confusions. I think better name may help. Nuke atomic_read() altogether. n = atomic_value(x); // doesnt hint as strongly at reading as "atomic_read" n = atomic_fetch(x); // yes, we _do_ touch RAM n = atomic_read_uncached(x); // or this How does that sound? -- vda - 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/