# Re: \[PATCH v10 08/14\] unwind deferred: Use bitmask to determine which callbacks to call

- From: Steven Rostedt \<rostedt@goodmis.org\>
- Date: 2025-06-24 16:37:09 
- List: linux-trace-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2025/06/3105581
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2025/06/3086227/t/2.md

```text
On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:00:21 +0200
Peter Zijlstra [ref] wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:55:38AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > > Which is somewhat inconsistent;
> > > 
> > >   __clear_bit()/__set_bit()  
> > 
> > Hmm, are the above non-atomic?  
> 
> Yes, ctags or any other code browser of you choice should get you to
> their definition, which has a comment explaining the non-atomicy of
> them.

Bah, I did do a TAGS function (emacs) to find them, but totally missed
the comment above. I just saw the macro magic of them, but totally
missed the comment above them saying:

/*
 * The following macros are non-atomic versions of their non-underscored
 * counterparts.
 */

 :-p

-- Steve
```