Re: (*(unsigned long *)&jiffies)++;

From: Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2000 - 11:49:03 EST


On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

>However, the C-code hack to force reordering is incorrect. It ties

jiffies is volatile so the increment won't be reordered.

And the only reason we make jiffies volatile is for the readers and _not_
for the only writer (do_timer) we are discussing about. In do_timer
there's no problem if the compiler reoder or cache jiffies in regs for
some time.

Andrea

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 07 2000 - 21:00:06 EST