Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
在 2013-04-23二的 15:40 -0700，Andrew Morton写道：
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:47:22 +0800 liguang wrote:
>
> > originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
> > and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
> > for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
> > so use '|=' instead of '='.
> > though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
> > it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
> > and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: liguang
> > ---
> > kernel/smp.c |2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> > index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> > static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
> > {
> > csd_lock_wait(data);
> > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> > + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> >
> > /*
>
> call_single_data.flags is in fact presently a boolean - we only use one
> bit in that word. We could remove all the &=, |=, & and | operations
> on call_single_data.flags and treat it as a boolean. That would
> probably result in faster and smaller code.
>
> But leaving the other 31 bits alone and reserved-for-future-use is not
> a bad thing. But if we're going to do that we should do it consistently.
>
> I rewrote your changelog ;)
That's fine, Thanks!
>
>
> From: liguang
> Subject: kernel/smp.c: use '|=' for csd_lock
>
> csd_lock() uses assignment to data->flags rather than |=. That is not
> buggy at present because only one bit (CSD_FLAG_LOCK) is defined in
> call_single_data.flags.
>
> But it will become buggy if we later add another flag, so fix it now.
>
> Signed-off-by: liguang
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra
> Cc: Oleg Nesterov
> Cc: Ingo Molnar
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
> ---
>
> kernel/smp.c |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -puN kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock kernel/smp.c
> --- a/kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock
> +++ a/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_si
> static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
> {
> csd_lock_wait(data);
> - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>
> /*
>* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
> _
>
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:47:22 +0800 liguang wrote:
> originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
> and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
> for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
> so use '|=' instead of '='.
> though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
> it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
> and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: liguang
> ---
> kernel/smp.c |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
> {
> csd_lock_wait(data);
> - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>
> /*
call_single_data.flags is in fact presently a boolean - we only use one
bit in that word. We could remove all the &=, |=, & and | operations
on call_single_data.flags and treat it as a boolean. That would
probably result in faster and smaller code.
But leaving the other 31 bits alone and reserved-for-future-use is not
a bad thing. But if we're going to do that we should do it consistently.
I rewrote your changelog ;)
From: liguang
Subject: kernel/smp.c: use '|=' for csd_lock
csd_lock() uses assignment to data->flags rather than |=. That is not
buggy at present because only one bit (CSD_FLAG_LOCK) is defined in
call_single_data.flags.
But it will become buggy if we later add another flag, so fix it now.
Signed-off-by: liguang
Cc: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock kernel/smp.c
--- a/kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock
+++ a/kernel/smp.c
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_si
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
_
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:47:22 +0800 liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
call_single_data.flags is in fact presently a boolean - we only use one
bit in that word. We could remove all the =, |=, and | operations
on call_single_data.flags and treat it as a boolean. That would
probably result in faster and smaller code.
But leaving the other 31 bits alone and reserved-for-future-use is not
a bad thing. But if we're going to do that we should do it consistently.
I rewrote your changelog ;)
From: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: kernel/smp.c: use '|=' for csd_lock
csd_lock() uses assignment to data-flags rather than |=. That is not
buggy at present because only one bit (CSD_FLAG_LOCK) is defined in
call_single_data.flags.
But it will become buggy if we later add another flag, so fix it now.
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl
Cc: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock kernel/smp.c
--- a/kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock
+++ a/kernel/smp.c
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_si
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
_
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
在 2013-04-23二的 15:40 -0700，Andrew Morton写道：
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:47:22 +0800 liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
call_single_data.flags is in fact presently a boolean - we only use one
bit in that word. We could remove all the =, |=, and | operations
on call_single_data.flags and treat it as a boolean. That would
probably result in faster and smaller code.
But leaving the other 31 bits alone and reserved-for-future-use is not
a bad thing. But if we're going to do that we should do it consistently.
I rewrote your changelog ;)
That's fine, Thanks!
From: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Subject: kernel/smp.c: use '|=' for csd_lock
csd_lock() uses assignment to data-flags rather than |=. That is not
buggy at present because only one bit (CSD_FLAG_LOCK) is defined in
call_single_data.flags.
But it will become buggy if we later add another flag, so fix it now.
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl
Cc: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock kernel/smp.c
--- a/kernel/smp.c~kernel-smpc-use-=-for-csd_lock
+++ a/kernel/smp.c
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_si
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
_
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM, li guang wrote:
>> 在 2013-04-22一的 08:18 +0200，Sedat Dilek写道：
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang wrote:
>>> > originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
>>> > and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
>>> > for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
>>> > so use '|=' instead of '='.
>>> > though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
>>> > it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
>>> > and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
>>> issue I reported?
>>
NOPE.
( I tried next-20130419 with 3 ipc-sem-next patches plus your two patches. )
- Sedat -
>> sorry,
>> just use the result of scripts/get_maintainer.pl
>>
>
> Hmm, really this script memyselfandI as a result?
>
>>>
>>> Against what tree are those patches?
>>> They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
>>
>> main
>>
>
> Andrew renamed data/csd,so it's only 1/2 needing a refresh.
> Testing...
>
> Regards,
> - Sedat -
>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> - Sedat -
>>>
>>> [1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795=1=2
>>>
>>> > Signed-off-by: liguang
>>> > ---
>>> > kernel/smp.c |2 +-
>>> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>>> > index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
>>> > --- a/kernel/smp.c
>>> > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>>> > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data
>>> > *data)
>>> > static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
>>> > {
>>> > csd_lock_wait(data);
>>> > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>>> > + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>>> >
>>> > /*
>>> > * prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
>>> > --
>>> > 1.7.2.5
>>> >
>>
>>
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM, li guang wrote:
> 在 2013-04-22一的 08:18 +0200，Sedat Dilek写道：
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang wrote:
>> > originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
>> > and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
>> > for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
>> > so use '|=' instead of '='.
>> > though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
>> > it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
>> > and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
>> >
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
>> issue I reported?
>
> sorry,
> just use the result of scripts/get_maintainer.pl
>
Hmm, really this script memyselfandI as a result?
>>
>> Against what tree are those patches?
>> They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
>
> main
>
Andrew renamed data/csd,so it's only 1/2 needing a refresh.
Testing...
Regards,
- Sedat -
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> - Sedat -
>>
>> [1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795=1=2
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: liguang
>> > ---
>> > kernel/smp.c |2 +-
>> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>> > index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/smp.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>> > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data
>> > *data)
>> > static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
>> > {
>> > csd_lock_wait(data);
>> > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>> > + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>> >
>> > /*
>> > * prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
>> > --
>> > 1.7.2.5
>> >
>
>
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
在 2013-04-22一的 08:18 +0200，Sedat Dilek写道：
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang wrote:
> > originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
> > and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
> > for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
> > so use '|=' instead of '='.
> > though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
> > it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
> > and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
> issue I reported?
sorry,
just use the result of scripts/get_maintainer.pl
>
> Against what tree are those patches?
> They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
main
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> - Sedat -
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795=1=2
>
> > Signed-off-by: liguang
> > ---
> > kernel/smp.c |2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> > index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> > @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> > static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
> > {
> > csd_lock_wait(data);
> > - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> > + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> >
> > /*
> > * prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
> > --
> > 1.7.2.5
> >
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang wrote:
> originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
> and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
> for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
> so use '|=' instead of '='.
> though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
> it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
> and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
>
Hi,
what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
issue I reported?
Against what tree are those patches?
They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
Thanks.
Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795=1=2
> Signed-off-by: liguang
> ---
> kernel/smp.c |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
> static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
> {
> csd_lock_wait(data);
> - data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
> + data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
>
> /*
> * prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
> --
> 1.7.2.5
>
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Hi,
what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
issue I reported?
Against what tree are those patches?
They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
Thanks.
Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795r=1w=2
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
--
1.7.2.5
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
在 2013-04-22一的 08:18 +0200，Sedat Dilek写道：
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Hi,
what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
issue I reported?
sorry,
just use the result of scripts/get_maintainer.pl
Against what tree are those patches?
They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
main
Thanks.
Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795r=1w=2
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
--
1.7.2.5
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM, li guang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
在 2013-04-22一的 08:18 +0200，Sedat Dilek写道：
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Hi,
what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
issue I reported?
sorry,
just use the result of scripts/get_maintainer.pl
Hmm, really this script memyselfandI as a result?
Against what tree are those patches?
They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
main
Andrew renamed data/csd,so it's only 1/2 needing a refresh.
Testing...
Regards,
- Sedat -
Thanks.
Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795r=1w=2
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data
*data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
--
1.7.2.5
--
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/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Sedat Dilek sedat.di...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:22 AM, li guang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
在 2013-04-22一的 08:18 +0200，Sedat Dilek写道：
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:47 AM, liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Hi,
what's the reason I got CCed on this two patches? The ipc-sem-next
issue I reported?
NOPE.
( I tried next-20130419 with 3 ipc-sem-next patches plus your two patches. )
- Sedat -
sorry,
just use the result of scripts/get_maintainer.pl
Hmm, really this script memyselfandI as a result?
Against what tree are those patches?
They are not compatible with Linux-Next (next-20130419).
main
Andrew renamed data/csd,so it's only 1/2 needing a refresh.
Testing...
Regards,
- Sedat -
Thanks.
Regards,
- Sedat -
[1] http://marc.info/?t=13663145795r=1w=2
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data
*data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
--
1.7.2.5
--
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/
[PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
originally, 'data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data->flags &= ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data->flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '&= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Signed-off-by: liguang
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data->flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data->flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
--
1.7.2.5
--
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/
[PATCH 1/2] smp: use '|=' for csd_lock
originally, 'data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK',
and we use 'data-flags = ~CSD_FLAG_LOCK'
for csd_unlock, they are not symmetrix operations
so use '|=' instead of '='.
though, now data-flags only hold CSD_FLAG_LOCK,
it's not so meaningful to use '|=' to set 1 bit,
and '= ~' to clear 1 bit.
Signed-off-by: liguang lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
kernel/smp.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
index 1818dc0..2d5deb4 100644
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static void csd_lock_wait(struct call_single_data *data)
static void csd_lock(struct call_single_data *data)
{
csd_lock_wait(data);
- data-flags = CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
+ data-flags |= CSD_FLAG_LOCK;
/*
* prevent CPU from reordering the above assignment
--
1.7.2.5
--
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/
