From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pippin.tausq.org (gandalf.tausq.org [64.81.244.94]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5DE4829 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 18:34:02 -0700 (MST) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:56:08 -0800 From: Randolph Chung To: John David Anglin Cc: Matthew Wilcox , grundler@dsl2.external.hp.com, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: [parisc-linux-cvs] linux grundler Message-ID: <20030209005608.GR11363@tausq.org> Reply-To: Randolph Chung References: <20030208232303.B27544@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <200302090035.h190ZJYC012838@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <20030209004942.GQ11363@tausq.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20030209004942.GQ11363@tausq.org> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > lock(l1) > do something > unlock(l1) > > lock(l2) > do something else > unlock(l2) > > will gcc ever move the lock(l2) before the unlock(l1)? well, bad example, since l1 and l2 are both volatile, but in general, nothing will prevent part of "do something else" to happen inside the l1 lock, right? randolph