Re: [PATCH 2/2]: atomic_t: Remove volatile from atomic_t definition

[Jamie Lokier]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 17 May 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > 
> > It turns out this bad code is a result of us defining atomic_t as a
> > volatile int.
> 
> Heh. Ok, as you point out in the commit message, I obviously agree with 
> this patch. "volatile" on data is evil, with the possible exception of 
> "jiffies" type things.

I wonder if

   extern unsigned long __nv_jiffies;
   #define jiffies (*(volatile unsigned long *)*__nv_jiffies)

would improve any code in the same way as this atomic_t change.

-- Jamie
--
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/