[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: set_current_state
> On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >AFAIK the ordering of volatile operations is only defined with respect
> >to each other.
> I thought the rule was different. If that is true we should add a
> barrier() after setting current->state in the UP code. Are you 100% sure
> that the compiler can move not-volatile data read/write across the write
> of a volatile var?
> I can't find this information into the gcc info docs.
It's defined in the C-standard.

I checked it, and I think the barrier() calls are not required:
5.1.3: "At sequence points, volatile objects are stable [...]"

Annex C: sequence points are
* function calls
* the end of a full expression.
* [...]

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.082 / U:3.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site