[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1377830702.4028.50.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:45:02 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless
update of refcount
On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That said, on power, you have that "ACCESS_ONCE()" implicit in the
> *type*, not in the code, so an "arch_spinlock_t" is fundamentally
> volatile in itself. It's one of the reasons I despise "volatile":
> things like volatility are _not_ attributes of a variable or a type,
> but of the code in question. Something can be volatile in one context,
> but not in another (one context might be locked, for example).
Right, we can probably change that to use ACCESS_ONCE... volatile tend
to never quite do what you expect anyway.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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