> > Shouldn't the __raw_read_can_lock and __raw_write_can_lock macros be changed too, just > to make sure the value gets read every single time if it's used in a loop? > Just like the __raw_spin_is_locked already has a (volatile signed char * cast)? > - it shouldn't get a volatile case imo, just a barrier(). A barrier() at least has well defined semantics, unlike volatile... - 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/
- References:
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch] uninline init_waitqueue_*() functions
- Prev by Date: Re: linux-2.6.17-mm6: can not boot: bad spinlock magic
- Next by Date: Re: [BUG sparc64] 2.6.16-git6 broke X11 on Ultra5 with ATI Mach64
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- Next by thread: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile'
- Index(es):
 |