[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46BB74B9.4070702@nortel.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:10:33 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
CC: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, wjiang@...ilience.com,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, 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
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Anyway, what's the supposed advantage of *(volatile *) vs. using
> a real volatile object? That you can access that same object in
> a non-volatile way?
That's my understanding. That way accesses where you don't care about
volatility may be optimised.
For instance, in cases where there are already other things controlling
visibility (as are needed for atomic increment, for example) you don't
need to make the access itself volatile.
Chris
-
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