Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:42:09AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> You need volatile semantics to force the compiler to ignore any proofs
> it might otherwise attempt to construct.  Hence all the ACCESS_ONCE()
> calls in my email to Torvald.  (Hopefully I translated your example
> reasonably.)

My brain gave out for today; but it did appear to have the right
structure.

I would prefer it C11 would not require the volatile casts. It should
simply _never_ speculate with atomic writes, volatile or not.



--
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/