Satyam Sharma wrote: > [ BTW, why do we want the compiler to not optimize atomic_read()'s in > the first place? Atomic ops guarantee atomicity, which has nothing > to do with "volatility" -- users that expect "volatility" from > atomic ops are the ones who must be fixed instead, IMHO. ] LDD3 says on page 125: "The following operations are defined for the type [atomic_t] and are guaranteed to be atomic with respect to all processors of an SMP computer." Doesn't "atomic WRT all processors" require volatility? -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--- -==== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 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 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@infradead.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- References:
- [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@infradead.org>
- [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: kfree(0) - ok?
- Next by Date: [PATCH 2.6.22] [0/5] x86 updates for 2.6.22-stable
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Index(es):
![]() |