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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans