[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <d4c6e3846c4171eb1e74d0874d7c3b60@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:33:40 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org,
satyam@...radead.org, clameter@....com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
>> The only thing volatile on an asm does is create a side effect
>> on the asm statement; in effect, it tells the compiler "do not
>> remove this asm even if you don't need any of its outputs".
>>
>> It's not disabling optimisation likely to result in bugs,
>> heisen- or otherwise; _not_ putting the volatile on an asm
>> that needs it simply _is_ a bug :-)
>
> Yep. And the reason it is a bug is that it fails to disable
> the relevant compiler optimizations. So I suspect that we might
> actually be saying the same thing here.
We're not saying the same thing, but we do agree :-)
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