![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote: > But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally don't > want. On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_* > operations. One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile > behavior to the thing that needs it. On most architectures, this patch set > just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the > use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil. Then we would need atomic_read() and atomic_read_volatile() atomic_read_volatile() would imply an object sized memory barrier before and after? - 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: 2007-08-14 23:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||