Chris Snook wrote:
This is not a problem, since indirect references will cause the CPU to
fetch the data from memory/cache anyway.
Isn't Zan's sample code (that shows the problem) already using indirect
references?
Chris
-
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:
- why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
- Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
[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]