Re: atomic64_t proposal

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
28 Aug 2002 14:39:28 -0700

Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208281040010.14946-100000@rmholt.homeip.net>
By author: Robin Holt <holt@rmholt.homeip.net>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> I do like the atomic_inc, atomic_dec, etc being able to handle either
> type. While producing code, I can do a simple check at the beginning of
> the block and define the appropriate type for a particular architecture.
>

Great. How do you expect to implement atomic_inc() et al so that that
can actually be done? Consider that atomic64_t may very well need
full-blown spinlocks, whereas a 32-bit atomic_t may not.

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/