Andrew Morton wrote:
>> + for (i = 0; i < IPMI_NUM_STATS; i++)
>> + atomic_set(&intf->stats[i], 0);
>>
>
> And this is why it would be very hard for any architecture to ever
> implement atomic_t as
>
> struct atomic_t {
> int counter;
> spinlock_t lock;
> };
>
> The interface assumes that atomic_set() fully initialises the atomic_t, and
> that atomic_set() can be used agaisnt both an uninitialised atomic_t and
> against an already-initialised atomic_t. IOW, we don't have atomic_init().
>
> So would our hypothetical future architcture's atomic_set() do spin_lock(),
> or would it do spin_lock_init()? Either one is wrong in many atomic_set
> callsites.
>
> Oh well.
>
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I did this. Do we start working
on an atomic_init()? It would be easy enough to set it to atomic_set()
for current architectures.
-corey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Openipmi-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
