lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
Date
>> atomic_dec() already has volatile behavior everywhere, so this is 
>> semantically
>> okay, but this code (and any like it) should be calling cpu_relax()
>> each
>> iteration through the loop, unless there's a compelling reason not
>> to. I'll
>> allow that for some hardware drivers (possibly this one) such a
>> compelling
>> reason may exist, but hardware-independent core subsystems probably
>> have no
>> excuse.
>
> No it does not have any volatile semantics. atomic_dec() can be
> reordered
> at will by the compiler within the current basic unit if you do not
> add a
> barrier.

"volatile" has nothing to do with reordering. atomic_dec() writes
to memory, so it _does_ have "volatile semantics", implicitly, as
long as the compiler cannot optimise the atomic variable away
completely -- any store counts as a side effect.


Segher

-
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: 2007-08-17 19:57    [W:0.297 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site