linux-kernel - why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707010847370.22564@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

  prompted by the earlier post on "volatile"s, is there a reason that
most atomic_t typedefs use volatile int's, while the rest don't?

$ grep "typedef.*struct"  $(find . -name atomic.h)
./include/asm-v850/atomic.h:typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
...

  etc, etc.  just curious.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/