From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:51:53 +0000 Subject: Re: write_unlock: replace clear_bit with byte store Message-Id: <20050429155153.GA8928@infradead.org> 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, 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.