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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
