Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

[Jerry Jiang]

Is there some feedback on this point ?

Thank you
./Jerry

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
>   prompted by the earlier post on "volatile"s, is there a reason that
> most atomic_t typedefs use volatile int's, while the rest don't?
> 
> $ grep "typedef.*struct"  $(find . -name atomic.h)
> ./include/asm-v850/atomic.h:typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
> ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
> ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t;
> ...
> 
>   etc, etc.  just curious.
> 
> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/