Satyam Sharma wrote:
#define atomic_read_volatile(v) \
({ \
forget((v)->counter); \
((v)->counter); \
})
where:
*vomit* :)
Not only do I hate the keyword volatile, but the barrier is only a
one-sided affair so its probable this is going to have slightly
different allowed reorderings than a real volatile access.
Also, why would you want to make these insane accessors for atomic_t
types? Just make sure everybody knows the basics of barriers, and they
can apply that knowledge to atomic_t and all other lockless memory
accesses as well.
#define forget(a) __asm__ __volatile__ ("" :"=m" (a) :"m" (a))
I like order(x) better, but it's not the most perfect name either.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/
