[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy0SPge-z9TbaLF2yxLffVTviv_WhhbkXsB5mMA9d9iaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:24:14 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> (a) seems to say that you don't like requiring programmers to mark
> atomic accesses specially. Is that the case?
In Paul's example, they were marked specially.
And you seemed to argue that Paul's example could possibly return
anything but 0/0.
If you really think that, I hope to God that you have nothing to do
with the C standard or any actual compiler I ever use.
Because such a standard or compiler would be shit. It's sadly not too uncommon.
Linus
--
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