[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:18:39 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.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
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:02:54 +0100
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> wrote:
> Why is all this fixation on "volatile"? I don't think
> people want "volatile" keyword per se, they want atomic_read(&x) to
> _always_ compile into an memory-accessing instruction, not register
> access.
and ... why is that?
is there any valid, non-buggy code sequence that makes that a
reasonable requirement?
-
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