Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
>
> > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > > i'm almost scared to ask any more questions.  :-)
> > >
> > > rday
> >
> > Momentarily I'll be posting a patchset that makes all atomic_t and
> > atomic64_t declarations non-volatile, and casts them to volatile
> > inside of atomic[64]_read.  This will ensure consistent behavior
> > across all architectures, and is in keeping with the philosophy that
> > memory reads should be enforced in running code, not declarations.
> >
> > I hope you don't mind that we're mooting the question by making the
> > code more sensible.
>
> not at all, but it does bring up the obvious next question -- once all
> these definitions are made consistent, is there any reason some of
> that content can't be centralized in a single atomic.h header file,
> rather than duplicating it across a couple dozen architectures?
>
> surely, after this process, there's going to be some content that's
> identical across all arches, no?
>
> rday

whoops, never mind, i just saw that earlier posting on this very
subject.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/