[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <0de0c3d833b6f543bd75f74bb17a124b@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:30:44 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org,
satyam@...radead.org, clameter@....com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
>>> Part of the motivation here is to fix heisenbugs. If I knew where
>>> they
>>
>> By the same token we should probably disable optimisations
>> altogether since that too can create heisenbugs.
>
> Precisely the point -- use of volatile (whether in casts or on asms)
> in these cases are intended to disable those optimizations likely to
> result in heisenbugs.
The only thing volatile on an asm does is create a side effect
on the asm statement; in effect, it tells the compiler "do not
remove this asm even if you don't need any of its outputs".
It's not disabling optimisation likely to result in bugs,
heisen- or otherwise; _not_ putting the volatile on an asm
that needs it simply _is_ a bug :-)
Segher
-
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