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):
 |