Re: set_current_state

Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:01:43 +0200 (CEST)


On Sun, 5 Sep 1999, Jamie Lokier wrote:

>AFAIK the ordering of volatile operations is only defined with respect
>to each other.

I thought the rule was different. If that is true we should add a
barrier() after setting current->state in the UP code. Are you 100% sure
that the compiler can move not-volatile data read/write across the write
of a volatile var?

I can't find this information into the gcc info docs.

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/