[PATCH RESEND] x86_64: make atomic64_t work like atomic_t

[Chris Snook]

Regardless of the greater controversy about the semantics of atomic_t, I think
we can all agree that atomic_t and atomic64_t should have the same semantics.
This is presently not the case on x86_64, where the volatile keyword was
removed from the declaration of atomic_t, but it was not removed from the
declaration of atomic64_t.  The following patch fixes that inconsistency,
without delving into anything more controversial.

From: Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx>

The volatile keyword has already been removed from the declaration of atomic_t
on x86_64.  For consistency, remove it from atomic64_t as well.

Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <csnook@xxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--- a/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h	2007-07-08 19:32:17.000000000 -0400
+++ b/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h	2007-09-13 11:30:51.000000000 -0400
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_sub_return(
 
 /* An 64bit atomic type */
 
-typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
+typedef struct { long counter; } atomic64_t;
 
 #define ATOMIC64_INIT(i)	{ (i) }
 
-
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/