[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46C2D6F3.3070707@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:35:31 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
CC: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
segher@...nel.crashing.org,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [ BTW, why do we want the compiler to not optimize atomic_read()'s in
> the first place? Atomic ops guarantee atomicity, which has nothing
> to do with "volatility" -- users that expect "volatility" from
> atomic ops are the ones who must be fixed instead, IMHO. ]
LDD3 says on page 125: "The following operations are defined for the
type [atomic_t] and are guaranteed to be atomic with respect to all
processors of an SMP computer."
Doesn't "atomic WRT all processors" require volatility?
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =--- -====
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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