[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708082116060.25146@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
cc: 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, wjiang@...ilience.com,
cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
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.
Volatile accesses in *code* can be ok, and if we have "atomic_read()"
expand to a "*(volatile int *)&(x)->value", then I'd be ok with that.
But marking data structures volatile just makes the compiler screw up
totally, and makes code for initialization sequences etc much worse.
Linus
-
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