Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store

David Mosberger
2005-04-29T16:01:14Z

>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:51:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> said:

Christoph> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:48:43AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
>> >> 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?

Christoph> I don't think it's fair to expect contributors to fix up
Christoph> ifdef'ed bits for a propritary compiler. If HP and Intel
Christoph> care about it they can add the features for icc later.

I don't think this is about proprietary vs non-proprietary. It's
about whether the code is clean. I'd _love_ to get rid of inline asm
in the future when GCC supports intrinsics since that could lead to
significantly improved code.

(And no, I don't expect Chris to necessarily fix up the ICC bits, though
a reasonable best-effort wouldn't take much time.)

--david