lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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    [W:0.032 / U:32.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site