Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:26:12 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures |
| |
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> #define atomic_read_volatile(v) \ > ({ \ > forget((v)->counter); \ > ((v)->counter); \ > }) > > where:
*vomit* :)
Not only do I hate the keyword volatile, but the barrier is only a one-sided affair so its probable this is going to have slightly different allowed reorderings than a real volatile access.
Also, why would you want to make these insane accessors for atomic_t types? Just make sure everybody knows the basics of barriers, and they can apply that knowledge to atomic_t and all other lockless memory accesses as well.
> #define forget(a) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" :"=m" (a) :"m" (a))
I like order(x) better, but it's not the most perfect name either.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - 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/
| |