On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:31:10AM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead.
> > The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C
> > language. It shouldn't be used. Volatile accesses in *code* can be ok, and
> > if we have "atomic_read()" expand to a "*(volatile int *)&(x)->value", then
> > I'd be ok with that.
> > But marking data structures volatile just makes the compiler screw up
> > totally, and makes code for initialization sequences etc much worse.
> > Linus
>
> Fair enough. Casting to (volatile int *) will give us the behavior people
> expect when using atomic_t without needing to use inefficient barriers.
>
> While we have the hood up, should we convert all the atomic_t's to
> non-volatile and put volatile casts in all the atomic_reads? I don't know
> enough about the various arches to say with confidence that those changes
> alone will preserve existing behavior. We might need some arch-specific
> tweaking of the atomic operations.
If you write that patch could you include the atomic64 variants as well,
please? Besides that just post the patch to linux-arch and maintainers
should speak up.
-
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]
