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

Christoph Lameter wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:09:13AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

gcc bugzilla bug #33102, for whatever that ends up being worth.  ;-)

I had totally forgotten that I'd already filed that bug more
than six years ago until they just closed yours as a duplicate
of mine :)

Good luck in getting it fixed!

Well, just got done re-opening it for the third time.  And a local
gcc community member advised me not to give up too easily.  But I
must admit that I am impressed with the speed that it was identified
as duplicate.

Should be entertaining!  ;-)

Right. ROTFL... volatile actually breaks atomic_t instead of making it safe. x++ becomes a register load, increment and a register store. Without volatile we can increment the memory directly. It seems that volatile requires that the variable is loaded into a register first and then operated upon. Understandable when you think about volatile being used to access memory mapped I/O registers where a RMW operation could be problematic.

So, if we want consistent behavior, we're pretty much screwed unless we use inline assembler everywhere?

	-- Chris
-
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:
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>

• 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: 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: Nick Piggin <[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: "Paul E. McKenney" <[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: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]