On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:32:52 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:Doing ++ on a u32 _is_ atomic wrt interrupts on x86 and probably lots of other architectures, so we're OK using unsigned there. But on some other architectures ++ on u32 is not atomic wrt interrutps, so they should use atomic_t or some other arch-specific mechanism. And guess what? It's already all been done: local_t. --
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21-rc2 |
| WANG Cong | [-mm Patch] UML: fix a building error |
| Roland McGrath | Re: [PATCH 0/5] ftrace: to kill a daemon |
git: | |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: cc1 fails silently |
| Michael Nolan | Power routines on notebook cause kernel panic |
| Marc Peters | v 0.11 boot disk problem |
| Dave `geek' Gymer | WARNING (was Re: New afio release) |
