[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8f6bb8a9e4f2819a161d732bdb6c70c0@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 17:59:29 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc: wjiang@...ilience.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
horms@...ge.net.au, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, zlynx@....org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/24] document volatile atomic_read() behavior
> Historically this has been
> +accomplished by declaring the counter itself to be volatile, but the
> +ambiguity of the C standard on the semantics of volatile make this
> practice
> +vulnerable to overly creative interpretation by compilers.
It's even worse when accessing through a volatile casted pointer;
see for example the recent(*) GCC bugs in that area.
(*) Well, not _all_ that recent. No one should be using the 3.x
series anymore, right?
> Explicit
> +casting in atomic_read() ensures consistent behavior across
> architectures
> +and compilers.
Even modulo compiler bugs, what makes you believe that?
Segher
-
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