Re: [PATCH RFC] locking: Add volatile to arch_spinlock_t structures

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:40:45PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2014 10:31 PM, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > So no, no, no. C got this wrong. Volatile data structures are a
> fundamental mistake and a bug.
> 
> BTW, I'm not at all interested in language lawyering and people who say
> "but but we can do x". A compiler that modifies adjacent fields because the
> standard leaves is open is a crap compiler, and we won't use it, or disable
> the broken optimization. It is wrong from a concurrency standpoint anyway,
> and adding broken volatiles is just making things worse.

Understood, for example, adjacent fields protected by different locks
as one example, where adjacent-field overwriting completely breaks even
very conservatively designed code.  Should be entertaining!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/