On Friday 17 August 2007 05:42, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > I'm really surprised it's as much as a few K. I tried it on powerpc > > and it only saved 40 bytes (10 instructions) for a G5 config. > > One of the things that "volatile" generally screws up is a simple > > volatile int i; > > i++;
But for atomic_t people use atomic_inc() anyways which does this correctly. It shouldn't really matter for atomic_t. I'm worrying a bit that the volatile atomic_t change caused subtle code breakage like these delay read loops people here pointed out. Wouldn't it be safer to just re-add the volatile to atomic_read() for 2.6.23? Or alternatively make it asm(), but volatile seems more proven. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
