lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 14 Aug 2007 16:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
FromChristoph Lameter <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:

> Because atomic operations are generally used for synchronization, which
> requires volatile behavior.  Most such codepaths currently use an inefficient
> barrier().  Some forget to and we get bugs, because people assume that
> atomic_read() actually reads something, and atomic_write() actually writes
> something.  Worse, these are architecture-specific, even compiler
> version-specific bugs that are often difficult to track down.

Looks like we need to have lock and unlock semantics?

atomic_read()

which has no barrier or volatile implications.

atomic_read_for_lock

	Acquire semantics?


atomic_read_for_unlock

	Release semantics?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-15 01:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2008