Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store

David Mosberger
2005-04-29T15:48:43Z

>>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:46:14 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com> said:

Christoph> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, David Mosberger wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com> 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