Satyam Sharma wrote:
#define atomic_read_volatile(v) \
({ \
forget((v)->counter); \
((v)->counter); \
})
where:
*vomit* :) Not only do I hate the keyword volatile, but the barrier is only a one-sided affair so its probable this is going to have slightly different allowed reorderings than a real volatile access. Also, why would you want to make these insane accessors for atomic_t types? Just make sure everybody knows the basics of barriers, and they can apply that knowledge to atomic_t and all other lockless memory accesses as well.
#define forget(a) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" :"=m" (a) :"m" (a))
I like order(x) better, but it's not the most perfect name either. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - 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:
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [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: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <[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
- Prev by Date: Re: nanosleep() accuracy
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- 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):
 |