2012/10/31 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>:
> On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 20:04 +0900, anish kumar wrote:
>> nflags = 1 | 3
>> nflags = 2 | 3
>> In both cases the result would be same.If I am right then wouldn't this
>> operation be redundant?
>
> Right. Actually we could change the new loop to:
>
> for (;;) {
> oflags = cmpxchg(&work->flags, flags, IRQ_WORK_FLAGS);
> if (oflags == flags)
> break;
> if (oflags & IRQ_WORK_PENDING)
> return false;
> flags = oflags;
> cpu_relax();
> }
We could. But I wanted to keep the code able to handle new flags in
the future (such as IRQ_WORK_LAZY).
> Frederic,
>
> Would you like to add my explanation to your change log? You can add the
> entire thing, which I think would explain a lot to people.
It's indeed a very clear explanation. I'll put that in the changelog, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
