Re: [PATCH 2/2]: atomic_t: Remove volatile from atomic_t definition

From: Jamie Lokier
Date: Mon May 17 2010 - 16:14:05 EST

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> >
> > It turns out this bad code is a result of us defining atomic_t as a
> > volatile int.
> Heh. Ok, as you point out in the commit message, I obviously agree with
> this patch. "volatile" on data is evil, with the possible exception of
> "jiffies" type things.

I wonder if

extern unsigned long __nv_jiffies;
#define jiffies (*(volatile unsigned long *)*__nv_jiffies)

would improve any code in the same way as this atomic_t change.

-- Jamie
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at