[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C993DF.4080400@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:15:11 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Nick Piggin <piggin@...erone.com.au>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Ilpo Jarvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ak@...e.de,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, David Miller <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
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So the only reason to add back "volatile" to the atomic_read() sequence is
> not to fix bugs, but to _hide_ the bugs better. They're still there, they
> are just a lot harder to trigger, and tend to be a lot subtler.
What about barrier removal? With consistent semantics we could optimize a fair
amount of code. Whether or not that constitutes "premature" optimization is
open to debate, but there's no question we could reduce our register wiping in
some places.
-- 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