On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Understood. My point is not that the impact is precisely zero, but
> rather that the impact on optimization is much less hurtful than the
> problems that could arise otherwise, particularly as compilers become
> more aggressive in their optimizations.
The problems arise because barriers are not used as required. Volatile
has wishy washy semantics and somehow marries memory barriers with data
access. It is clearer to separate the two. Conceptual cleanness usually
translates into better code. If one really wants the volatile then lets
make it explicit and use
atomic_read_volatile()
-
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/
