Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: set_current_state

[Anupam Kapoor <anupam.kapoor@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1204 bytes --]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:30:12 -0300, Felipe W Damasio
<felipewd@terra.com.br> wrote:
> 
> 
> Anupam Kapoor wrote:
> 
> > hmm, i am not sure about this but does it make sense to use
> > __set_current_state for functions that have fastcall ? and use
> > set_current_state for others ?
> 
>         It's not _that_ simple. We need set_current_state to racing if
> instructions are reordered.
can you please elaborate what you mean here, i don't understand the
connotations sorry !

> 
>         __set_current_state should *always* be used when setting to TASK_RUNNING.
> 
>         But since function calls act also as memory barriers and most of the
> locking primitives also have memory barriers built into them, there are
> few places where we actually need set_current_state (rather than
> __set_current_state).
ah ok ! thanks for the explanation. i will check out lkml for more info.

kind regards
anupam
> 
>         Please check the LKML archives for further explanations.
> 
>         But in short: No, it's not just a blind search-and-replace kind of thing.
> 
>         Cheers,
> 
> Felipe
> --
> It's most certainly GNU/Linux, not Linux. Read more at
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors