This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


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 

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/14] x86/ticketlock: clean up types and accessors, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <=