> > When you are implementing the locking primitives on a new platform. When > > you are implementing the I/O and atomic prmitives on a new platform. Also > > in inline gcc assembler where "volatile" is used for subtly different > > purposes. > > Is there a good reason for using volatile in atomic/locking primitives? > AFAIKS there is not. Depends on the platform. If you are writing a new architecture then who knows what you will need to get the barriers right - you may want to use volatile, you may want to use asm. - 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:
- [RFC, PATCH 2/4] SoC base drivers: ASIC3 SoC hardware definitions
- From: Paul Sokolovsky <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC, PATCH 2/4] SoC base drivers: ASIC3 SoC hardware definitions
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: "Satyam Sharma" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- [RFC, PATCH 2/4] SoC base drivers: ASIC3 SoC hardware definitions
- Prev by Date: Chaining sg lists for big I/O commands: Question
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Bug creating USB endpoints in 2.6.20.x (kernel bug 8198)
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
- Index(es):