[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 15:53:30 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Pierre Ossman <drzeus-mmc@...eus.cx>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: using long instead of atomic_t when only set/read
is required
> Atomicity of reads of write for pointers and integral types (other than
> long long) should be documented.
NAK.
Atomicity of reads or writes for pointers and integral types is NOT
guaranteed. Gcc doesn't believe in your guarantee.
Alan
--
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