From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Oct 12 20:32:34 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7AC2137B66E; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA21248;
	Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:31:59 +1100
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:31:54 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org
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 
In-Reply-To: <200010122007.OAA18121@berserker.bsdi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010131424300.43631-100000@besplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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