From 4072d49611b7486accc513b1edbccd364a607444 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Dale S. Rahn" Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 05:47:18 +0000 Subject: Correct a thinko I had when writing the comment for this code. --- lib/libpthread/arch/powerpc/_atomic_lock.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'lib/libpthread/arch/powerpc') diff --git a/lib/libpthread/arch/powerpc/_atomic_lock.c b/lib/libpthread/arch/powerpc/_atomic_lock.c index ab1a5321763..5318ae2cc78 100644 --- a/lib/libpthread/arch/powerpc/_atomic_lock.c +++ b/lib/libpthread/arch/powerpc/_atomic_lock.c @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -/* $OpenBSD: _atomic_lock.c,v 1.1 1998/12/21 07:22:26 d Exp $ */ +/* $OpenBSD: _atomic_lock.c,v 1.2 1998/12/22 05:47:17 rahnds Exp $ */ /* * Atomic lock for powerpc */ @@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ _atomic_lock(volatile _spinlock_lock_t *lock) * Side note. to prevent two processes from accessing * the same address with the lwarx in one instrution * and the stwcx in another process, the current powerpc - * kernel uses a lwarx instruction without the corresponding - * stwcx which effectively causes any reservation of a - * process to be removed. if a context switch occurs + * kernel uses a stwcx instruction without the corresponding + * lwarx which causes any reservation of a process + * to be removed. if a context switch occurs * between the two accesses the store will not occur * and the condition code will cause it to loop. If on * a dual processor machine, the reserve will cause -- cgit v1.2.3