[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18115.48863.331246.638826@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:05:03 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
"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
Satyam Sharma writes:
> I can't speak for this particular case, but there could be similar code
> examples elsewhere, where we do the atomic ops on an atomic_t object
> inside a higher-level locking scheme that would take care of the kind of
> problem you're referring to here. It would be useful for such or similar
> code if the compiler kept the value of that atomic object in a register.
If there is a higher-level locking scheme then there is no point to
using atomic_t variables. Atomic_t is specifically for the situation
where multiple CPUs are updating a variable without locking.
Paul.
-
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