[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1f265c14b28f2c5922059a130b1d8aa5@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:14:30 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, horms@...ge.net.au,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rpjday@...dspring.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de,
cfriesen@...tel.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
> (and yes, it is perfectly legitimate to
> want a non-volatile read for a data type that you also want to do
> atomic RMW operations on)
...which is undefined behaviour in C (and GCC) when that data is
declared volatile, which is a good argument against implementing
atomics that way in itself.
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