Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Part of the motivation here is to fix heisenbugs. If I knew where they


By the same token we should probably disable optimisations
altogether since that too can create heisenbugs.
Almost everything is a tradeoff; and so is this.  I don't
believe most people would find disabling all compiler
optimisations an acceptable price to pay for some peace
of mind.

So why is this a good tradeoff?

It certainly is better than disabling all compiler optimisations!

I also think that just adding things to APIs in the hope it might fix
up some bugs isn't really a good road to go down. Where do you stop?

I look at it the other way: keeping the "volatile" semantics in
atomic_XXX() (or adding them to it, whatever) helps _prevent_ bugs;
certainly most people expect that behaviour, and also that behaviour
is *needed* in some places and no other interface provides that
functionality.


[some confusion about barriers wrt atomics snipped]


Segher

-
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/

[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]
  Powered by Linux