lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures


    On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

    > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:33:36PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
    > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:25:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Do we really need another set of APIs? Can you give even one example
    > > > where the pre-existing volatile semantics are causing enough of a problem
    > > > to justify adding yet more atomic_*() APIs?
    > >
    > > Let's turn this around. Can you give a single example where
    > > the volatile semantics is needed in a legitimate way?
    >
    > Sorry, but you are the one advocating for the change.

    Not for i386 and x86_64 -- those have atomic ops without any "volatile"
    semantics (currently as per existing definitions).
    -
    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: 2007-08-15 19:09    [W:0.022 / U:90.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site