[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:0.019 / U:2.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site