I wrote: > static inline void A(atomic_t *a) > { > int b = atomic_read(a); > if (b) > do_something_time_consuming(); > } > > static inline void B(atomic_t *a) > { > int b = atomic_read(a); > if (b) > do_something_more(); > } > > static void C(atomic_t *a) > { > A(a); > B(b); /* ^ typo */ B(a); > } > > Would this need forget(a) after A(a)? > > (Is the latter actually answered in C99 or is it compiler-dependent?) -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== =--- -==== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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:
- [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 21/25][V3] export cpu_gdt_descr
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)
- 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):