Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:31:54 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: we need atomic_t Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010131424300.43631-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200010122007.OAA18121@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Chuck Paterson wrote: > Lets say its not a counter, but something that > gets bits or'd into it. Seems that it better be > big enough to hold the bit that is going to be or'd > in? We have to worry about this today, I don't see > this changing just because we declare it atomic. For most of the atomic shorts in vm, the correct replacement is atomic_uint_least16_t, (short should have been uint_least16_t before atomic stuff was implemented). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010131424300.43631-100000>