Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:35:51 +0800 | From | Jerry Jiang <> | Subject | Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are? |
| |
Is there some feedback on this point ?
Thank you ./Jerry
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:49:37 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > prompted by the earlier post on "volatile"s, is there a reason that > most atomic_t typedefs use volatile int's, while the rest don't? > > $ grep "typedef.*struct" $(find . -name atomic.h) > ./include/asm-v850/atomic.h:typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t; > ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t; > ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t; > ... > > etc, etc. just curious. > > rday > -- > ======================================================================== > Robert P. J. Day > Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry > Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA > > http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page > ======================================================================== > - > 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/ > > - 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/
| |