[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    [W:0.041 / U:34.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site