Re: [Xen-devel] mixture of atomic and non-atomic operations on CPU masks

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 07:46 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> the inconsistency here has been puzzling me for a while, and I think
> we ought to do something about it (perhaps not for 4.5 anymore,
> but then right after): cpumask_(test_and_)?(set|clear)_cpu all use
> the respective atomic bitops, in contrast to all other operations on
> cpumask_t.

Did that just happen by accident because the bitops are sync by default
with a non-sync variant?

>  A good part of the users don't require the atomicity at
> all (in particular any of those acting on function scope variables).
> Does anyone know of reasons why the default shouldn't be non-
> atomic ops across the board, with atomic special cases being made
> available for the few cases where they're actually needed?

I'm fine with that.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel