| To: | Christoph Lameter <christoph@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: atomic_dec_and_test for child dst needed in dst_destroy? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:34:38 -0700 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504051155260.13697@server.graphe.net> |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504051155260.13697@server.graphe.net> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <christoph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is the atomic_dec_and_test in dst_destroy just there to join two atomic > operations into one without being necessary for the correctness of freeing > dsts? Otimizing big SGI NUM systems again, are you? :-) atomic_dec() has no memory ordering guarentees, only the atomic routines returning values do the proper SMP memory barriers. So, based upon this alone I don't think your change is valid. I've even documented this fully, see Documentation/atomic_ops.txt |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: High CPU utilization with Bonding driver ?, Ravinandan Arakali |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: atomic_dec_and_test for child dst needed in dst_destroy?, Christoph Lameter |
| Previous by Thread: | atomic_dec_and_test for child dst needed in dst_destroy?, Christoph Lameter |
| Next by Thread: | Re: atomic_dec_and_test for child dst needed in dst_destroy?, Christoph Lameter |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |