From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264231AbUE2Jqt (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 05:46:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264238AbUE2Jqt (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 05:46:49 -0400 Received: from dbl.q-ag.de ([213.172.117.3]:59572 "EHLO dbl.q-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264231AbUE2Jqr (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 May 2004 05:46:47 -0400 Message-ID: <40B85C05.5080302@colorfullife.com> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:46:45 +0200 From: Manfred Spraul User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] use nonatomic bitops for cpumask_t References: <40B85071.8090402@colorfullife.com> In-Reply-To: <40B85071.8090402@colorfullife.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Manfred Spraul wrote: > Hi, > > I'm checking for callers that rely on the atomicity of the bitops, but > so far everyone has it's own locks. One exception is the x86 tlb flush code, thus my patch is wrong. We could add nonatomic __cpu_set and __cpu_clear bitops, but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort, cpu bitops aren't that common (kernel/rcupdate.c and balance_node could use the __ versions). Sorry for the noise (and don't check who wrote the x86 tlb flush code) -- Manfred