[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E60702.30302@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:30:10 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: Francis Moreau <francis.moro@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about C language.
Francis Moreau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know it's a bit out of topic but this is something I need to clarify for
> writing a Linux driver... hope you don't mind.
>
> In my driver I have a global variable that controls a loop such as:
>
> int my_condition;
>
> void change_my_condition(int new)
> {
> my_condition = new;
> }
>
> int foo(void)
> {
> /* irqs are disabled */
> my_condition = 1;
> do {
> ....
> local_irq_enable();
> cpu_sleep();
> local_irq_disable();
>
> } while (my_condition);
>
> }
>
> This variable is modified by an interrupt handler define in another file
> by using 'change_my_condition' function.
>
> By reading the ISO C99 specification, I _think_ that I needn't any
> kind of barrier
> or even use the volatile type qualifier for my_condition variable to make a true
> access to 'my_condition' in the controlling expression of the while, but I'm not
> sure.
>
> Coud anybody confirm ?
>
> Thanks,
Even volatile may be insufficient with some architecture/compiler
combinations. You should use explicit barriers wherever you need them,
or Bad Things will happen.
-- 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