[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070809125920.37eb6e6d.wjiang@resilience.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:59:20 +0800
From: Jerry Jiang <wjiang@...ilience.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> >
> > Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to be
> > volatile. This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually read
> > anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a register, which
> > can break code that loops until something external changes the value of an
> > atomic_t.
>
> I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead.
>
> The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C
> language. It shouldn't be used.
Why? It's a wart! Is it due to unclear C standard on volatile related point?
Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it clear?
-- Jerry
>
> Volatile accesses in *code* can be ok, and if we have "atomic_read()"
> expand to a "*(volatile int *)&(x)->value", then I'd be ok with that.
>
> But marking data structures volatile just makes the compiler screw up
> totally, and makes code for initialization sequences etc much worse.
>
> Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists