Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store

Christoph Hellwig
2005-04-29T15:51:53Z

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?

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