![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > So the only reason to add back "volatile" to the atomic_read() sequence is > not to fix bugs, but to _hide_ the bugs better. They're still there, they > are just a lot harder to trigger, and tend to be a lot subtler. What about barrier removal? With consistent semantics we could optimize a fair amount of code. Whether or not that constitutes "premature" optimization is open to debate, but there's no question we could reduce our register wiping in some places. -- 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: 2007-08-20 15:19 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||