[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709101157060.24491@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com, rpjday@...dspring.com,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 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>,
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
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> "volatile" has nothing to do with reordering. atomic_dec() writes
> to memory, so it _does_ have "volatile semantics", implicitly, as
> long as the compiler cannot optimise the atomic variable away
> completely -- any store counts as a side effect.
Stores can be reordered. Only x86 has (mostly) implicit write ordering. So
no atomic_dec has no volatile semantics and may be reordered on a variety
of processors. Writes to memory may not follow code order on several
processors.
-
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