Messages in this thread | | | From | manfreds@colorful ... | Subject | Re: set_current_state | Date | Mon, 6 Sep 1999 06:03:20 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
> > On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > >AFAIK the ordering of volatile operations is only defined with respect > >to each other. > > I thought the rule was different. If that is true we should add a > barrier() after setting current->state in the UP code. Are you 100% sure > that the compiler can move not-volatile data read/write across the write > of a volatile var? > > I can't find this information into the gcc info docs. It's defined in the C-standard.
I checked it, and I think the barrier() calls are not required: 5.1.3: "At sequence points, volatile objects are stable [...]"
Annex C: sequence points are * function calls * the end of a full expression. * [...] -- Manfred
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |