Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:10:16 +0200
Bodo Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 
> > Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it
> > clear?
> 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/

I have read this article before, but What Linus said only focusing on
the conclusion-- The semantics of it are so unclear as
to be totally useless.

and still not to said "Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is
acceptable"

-- Jerry


> -- 
> Fun things to slip into your budget
> Heisenberg Compensator upgrade kit
> 
> Friß, Spammer: [email protected]
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
    • From: Bodo Eggert <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [patch (testing)] Re: 2.6.20->2.6.21 - networking dies after random time
• Next by Date: [patch 0/9] assorted fixes and cleanups
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]