From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe W Damasio Subject: Re: [PATCH] unneeded memory barrier Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:34:13 -0300 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <3F60EA55.90008@terra.com.br> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: mochel-3NddpPZAyC0@public.gmane.org, acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi Andy, First of all, thanks for your review. Grover, Andrew wrote: >>From: Felipe W Damasio [mailto:felipewd-y7mWNqJcIDpfJ/NunPodnw@public.gmane.org] >> Patch against 2.6-test5 to remove an, IMHO, unneeded >>memory barrier >>on acpi/bus.c. Feel free to tell me I'm totally wrong, though :) >> >> If it looks good, please consider applying. > > > - set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > My understanding of functions starting with __ was "use them but you > better know what you're doing". This patch may be technically correct > but does the unneeded barrier really hurt anything? If not then I think > the regular version is ok. I don't think it hurts in terms of "enforcing ordering too much", but that barrier isn't needed at all since it sets the state to TASK_RUNNING... But hey, it's not my driver to decide :) Thanks anyway, Felipe ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf