![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 10:06:31AM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: >>> Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have an example of this?>> The only code I somewhat know, the ieee1394 subsystem, was perhaps >> authored and is currently maintained with the expectation that each >> occurrence of atomic_read actually results in a load operation, i.e. is >> not optimized away. This means all atomic_t (bus generation, packet and >> buffer refcounts, and some other state variables)* and likewise all >> atomic bitops in that subsystem.> > Can you find an actual atomic_read code snippet there that is > broken without the volatile modifier? A whole bunch of atomic_read uses will be broken without the volatile modifier once we start removing barriers that aren't needed if volatile behavior is guaranteed. barrier() clobbers all your registers. volatile atomic_read() only clobbers one register, and more often than not it's a register you wanted to clobber anyway. -- Chris - 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: 2007-08-16 22:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||