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

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Which example do you have in mind here?  Haven't we resolved all the
> debated examples, or did I miss any?

Well, Paul seems to still think that the standard possibly allows
speculative writes or possibly value speculation in ways that break
the hardware-guaranteed orderings.

And personally, I can't read standards paperwork. It is invariably
written in some basically impossible-to-understand lawyeristic mode,
and then it is read by people (compiler writers) that intentionally
try to mis-use the words and do language-lawyering ("that depends on
what the meaning of 'is' is"). The whole "lvalue vs rvalue expression
vs 'what is a volatile access'" thing for C++ was/is a great example
of that.

So quite frankly, as a result I refuse to have anything to do with the
process directly.

                 Linus
--
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/