[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708151917210.11736@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
cc:	Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
	wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org,
	rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
	segher@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
 architectures
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Do we have a consensus here? (hoping against hope, probably :-)
> 
> I can certainly agree with this.
I agree too.
> But I have to say that I still don't know of a single place
> where one would actually use the volatile variant.
I suspect that what you say is true after we have looked at all callers.
-
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
 
