Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: Re: ipoib_mcast_send.patch > > Michael> Right, but I thought atomic test_and_set_bit implied > Michael> smp_wmb already? > > So did I but then I looked in the kernel source and now I think that > set_bit operations are only ordered against other bitops that touch > the same word. For example ia64 just uses cmpxchg to implement the > bitops, and powerpc just uses locked loads and stores.
Ugh, if thats the case you cant protect arbitrary data with a bit: you need a spinlock or a barrier? Wouldnt lots of code in ipoib that looks at bits be broken then? -- Michael S. Tsirkin Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
