lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?
Chris Snook wrote:

> If your architecture doesn't support SMP, the volatile keyword doesn't
> do anything except add a useless memory fetch.

I was under the impression that there were other cases as well
(interrupt handlers, for instance) where the value could be modified
"behind the back" of the current code.

It seems like this would fall more into the case of the arch providing
guarantees when using locked/atomic access rather than anything
SMP-related, no?.

Chris
-
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: 2007-08-07 17:55    [W:0.087 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site