Regardless of the greater controversy about the semantics of atomic_t, I think
we can all agree that atomic_t and atomic64_t should have the same semantics.
This is presently not the case on x86_64, where the volatile keyword was
removed from the declaration of atomic_t, but it was not removed from the
declaration of atomic64_t. The following patch fixes that inconsistency,
without delving into anything more controversial.
From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
The volatile keyword has already been removed from the declaration of atomic_t
on x86_64. For consistency, remove it from atomic64_t as well.
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
CC: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
--- a/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h 2007-07-08 19:32:17.000000000 -0400
+++ b/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h 2007-09-13 11:30:51.000000000 -0400
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_sub_return(
/* An 64bit atomic type */
-typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
+typedef struct { long counter; } atomic64_t;
#define ATOMIC64_INIT(i) { (i) }
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
