Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:51:47PM +0900, Hirokazu Takata wrote:
 
> Could you tell me more about the new generic {set,clear,test}_bit()
> routines?
> 
> Why do you copied these routines from parisc and employed them
>  as generic ones?
> I'm not sure whether these generic {set,clear,test}_bit() routines
> are really generic or not.

I think it is the most portable implementation.
And I'm trying not to write my own code in this patch set.

> 
> > +/* Can't use raw_spin_lock_irq because of #include problems, so
> > + * this is the substitute */
> > +#define _atomic_spin_lock_irqsave(l,f) do {	\
> > +	raw_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);	\
> > +	local_irq_save(f);			\
> > +	__raw_spin_lock(s);			\
> > +} while(0)
> > +
> > +#define _atomic_spin_unlock_irqrestore(l,f) do {	\
> > +	raw_spinlock_t *s = ATOMIC_HASH(l);		\
> > +	__raw_spin_unlock(s);				\
> > +	local_irq_restore(f);				\
> > +} while(0)
> 
> Is there a possibility that these routines affect for archs
> with no HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_BITOPS for SMP ?

Currently there is no architecture using this atomic *_bit() routines
on SMP. But it may be the benefit of those who are trying to port Linux.
(See the comment by Theodore Ts'o in include/asm-generic/bitops.h)

> I think __raw_spin_lock() is sufficient and local_irqsave() is 
> not necessary in general atomic routines.

If the interrupt handler also wants to do bit manipilation then
you can get a deadlock between the original caller of *_bit() and the
interrupt handler.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ultralinux" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html