[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 02:11:43PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> The uses of atomic_read where one might want it to allow caching of
> the result seem to me to fall into 3 categories:
> 1. Places that are buggy because of a race arising from the way it's
> used.
> 2. Places where there is a race but it doesn't matter because we're
> doing some clever trick.
> 3. Places where there is some locking in place that eliminates any
> potential race.


> In case 1, adding volatile won't solve the race, of course, but it's
> hard to argue that we shouldn't do something because it will slow down
> buggy code. Case 2 is hopefully pretty rare and accompanied by large
> comment blocks, and in those cases caching the result of atomic_read
> explicitly in a local variable would probably make the code clearer.
> And in case 3 there is no reason to use atomic_t at all; we might as
> well just use an int.

Since adding volatile doesn't help any of the 3 cases, and
takes away optimisations from both 2 and 3, I wonder what
is the point of the addition after all?

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:
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: 2007-08-16 07:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean