[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708161147450.17049@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> It seems that there could be a lot of places where atomic_t is used in
> a non-atomic fashion, and that those uses are either buggy, or there
> is some lock held at the time which guarantees that other CPUs aren't
> changing the value. In both cases there is no point in using
> atomic_t; we might as well just use an ordinary int.
The point of atomic_t is to do atomic *changes* to the variable.
-
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