From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:48:43 +0000 Subject: Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store Message-Id: <17010.22363.240550.943288@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter said: Christoph> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, David Mosberger wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter said: Christoph> So is my version of inline asm int the latest version Christoph> from yesterday. There is an alternate version included Christoph> for !ASM_SUPPORTED in C which does not use an nta store. >> Yes, but _if_ it's a good idea to use .nta with GCC, there is no >> reason not to do the same with ICC. Don't introduce unnecessary >> divergence. Christoph> The same situation of .nta only for GCC already exists Christoph> for regular spinlocks as a result of my nta unlock patch Christoph> that I posted a week or so ago. And that's an argument to make the situation worse? How about cleaning up the previous patch instead? --david