[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708091359180.25299@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:02:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
cc: Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, Zan Lynx <zlynx@....org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i'm almost scared to ask any more questions. :-)
> >
> > rday
>
> Momentarily I'll be posting a patchset that makes all atomic_t and
> atomic64_t declarations non-volatile, and casts them to volatile
> inside of atomic[64]_read. This will ensure consistent behavior
> across all architectures, and is in keeping with the philosophy that
> memory reads should be enforced in running code, not declarations.
>
> I hope you don't mind that we're mooting the question by making the
> code more sensible.
not at all, but it does bring up the obvious next question -- once all
these definitions are made consistent, is there any reason some of
that content can't be centralized in a single atomic.h header file,
rather than duplicating it across a couple dozen architectures?
surely, after this process, there's going to be some content that's
identical across all arches, no?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists