Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across allarchitectures

From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Tue Aug 14 2007 - 18:52:03 EST


On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:

> But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally don't
> want. On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_*
> operations. One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile
> behavior to the thing that needs it. On most architectures, this patch set
> just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the
> use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil.

Then we would need

atomic_read()

and

atomic_read_volatile()

atomic_read_volatile() would imply an object sized memory barrier before
and after?
-
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/