| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/14] x86/ticketlock: clean up types and accesso
|
To: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/14] x86/ticketlock: clean up types and accessors |
|
From: |
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:21:00 -0500 |
|
Cc: |
Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:26:30 -0800 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<92d21a90d4e27db4b46dbacd58ef67719acd0185.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<cover.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> <92d21a90d4e27db4b46dbacd58ef67719acd0185.1289940821.git.jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
> static inline int __ticket_spin_is_locked(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> - int tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->slock);
> + struct __raw_tickets tmp = ACCESS_ONCE(lock->tickets);
>
> - return !!(((tmp >> TICKET_SHIFT) ^ tmp) & ((1 << TICKET_SHIFT) - 1));
> + return !!(tmp.tail ^ tmp.head);
Does it make sense to mask it here it here with TICKET_MASK as it was done
before?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/14] x86/ticketlock: clean up types and accessors,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <=
|
|
|
| |
|
Home