Re: GCC proposal for "@" asm constraint

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 22 2000 - 14:05:43 EDT

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Is there any T/TCP patch for kernel 2.2.*"

Previous message: David Ford: "[patch] Re: ARP entry in /proc wrong?"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: GCC proposal for "@" asm constraint"
Next in thread: Philippe Troin: "2.2.17 Stuck TCP ESTABLISHED sessions"
Reply: Philippe Troin: "2.2.17 Stuck TCP ESTABLISHED sessions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > This patch fixes the spinlock problems in read_lock/write_lock and also some
> > alpha SMP race where clear_bit isn't enforcing a memory barrier
>
> Why would clear_bit() be a memory barrier?

Because historically it sort of was. This came up with the old PPP code
for one.

> Anything that expects clear_bit() to be a memory barrier should be fixed.

No argument about that however.

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

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Is there any T/TCP patch for kernel 2.2.*"
Previous message: David Ford: "[patch] Re: ARP entry in /proc wrong?"
In reply to: Linus Torvalds: "Re: GCC proposal for "@" asm constraint"
Next in thread: Philippe Troin: "2.2.17 Stuck TCP ESTABLISHED sessions"
Reply: Philippe Troin: "2.2.17 Stuck TCP ESTABLISHED sessions"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 14:08:01 EDT