> Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > + spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock); > > + set_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_STARTED, &priv->flags); > > + spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock); > > Strange to put a lock around an atomic op like that. > > Sometimes it's valid. If another cpu was doing: > > spin_lock(lock); > > if (test_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_STARTED)) > something(); > ... > if (test_bit(IPOIB_MCAST_STARTED)) > something_else(); > > spin_unlock(lock); > > then the locked set_bit() makes sense. > > But often it doesn't ;)
Good point. Michael, any reason why the lock is there around the set_bit()? (And similarly for the corresponding clear_bit()) Thanks, Roland _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
