[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1IJ424-0000d7-HK@be1.lrz>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:10:16 +0200
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
>> > Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to
>> > be
>> > volatile. This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually
>> > read anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a
>> > register, which can break code that loops until something external changes
>> > the value of an atomic_t.
>>
>> I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead.
>>
>> The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C
>> language. It shouldn't be used.
>
> Why? It's a wart! Is it due to unclear C standard on volatile related point?
>
> Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it
> clear?
http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/
--
Fun things to slip into your budget
Heisenberg Compensator upgrade kit
Friß, Spammer: uWfuXeviZ@...eggert.dyndns.org
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists