RE: [PATCH 2.5.52] Use __set_current_state() instead of current->

[Robert Love]

On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 21:40, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:

> Well, I think it makes kind of sense. If we know we are
> returning to some place where nothing bad could happen
> with reordering ... well, so be it, don't use __set_...()

Oh, I see.  If it returns to somewhere that immediately e.g. puts it on
a wait queue.  In that case, yep: need the barrier version.

> And that would now really work when CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE=1 is required
> [after all, it is a write, so it'd need the equivalent of a wmb() or
> xchg()].

Is this a hint that your employer may have an x86 chip in the future
with weak ordering? :)

> Okay, changing that one too, just in case.

Good - better safe than sorry.

	Robert Love