Re: [PATCH 1/23] document preferred use of volatile with atomic_t

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:

> @@ -38,7 +45,7 @@
>  
>  Next, we have:
>  
> -	#define atomic_read(v)	((v)->counter)
> +	#define atomic_read(v)	(*(volatile int *)&(v)->counter)
>  
>  which simply reads the current value of the counter.

volatile means that there is some vague notion of "read it now". But that 
really does not exist. Instead we control visibility via barriers 
(smp_wmb, smp_rmb). Would it not be best to not have volatile at all in 
atomic operations and let the barriers do the work?

-
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 1/23] document preferred use of volatile with atomic_t
    • From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/23] make atomic_read() and atomic_set() behavior consistent across all architectures
    • From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 1/23] document preferred use of volatile with atomic_t
    • From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Thinking outside the box on file systems
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/23] document preferred use of volatile with atomic_t
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/23] document preferred use of volatile with atomic_t
• 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]