[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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?


which has no barrier or volatile implications.


Acquire semantics?


Release semantics?

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-15 01:21    [W:0.298 / U:2.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site