[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: bitmaps/bitops
On Sun, 2003-03-16 at 01:31, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > but the prototype for test_and_set_bit() depends on $(ARCH), and it's
> > not consistent, with the second arg (bitmap address) being one of:
> > volatile void *
> > void *
> > volatile unsigned long *
> It should be unsigned long pointer. I have no idea why
> volatile is still alive. Perhaps Linus can remember why he
> left it in on is386. Other arch maintainers midnlessly ape him
> in this area. I think I even kept his e-mail where he explains
> why volatile has to go.

Several 2.4 drivers assume the test_and_set point is a memory
barrier for locking. Lots of

if(test_and_set_bit(0, &foo))

Since its inline code and not a memory barrier otherwise there
is little stop the compile doing



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.049 / U:5.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site