From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753219AbXIZGhQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:37:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750963AbXIZGhE (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:37:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:39142 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751008AbXIZGhB (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:37:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:36:54 -0400 From: Chris Snook To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH RESEND] x86_64: make atomic64_t work like atomic_t Message-ID: <20070926063654.GA11773@shell.boston.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Regardless of the greater controversy about the semantics of atomic_t, I think we can all agree that atomic_t and atomic64_t should have the same semantics. This is presently not the case on x86_64, where the volatile keyword was removed from the declaration of atomic_t, but it was not removed from the declaration of atomic64_t. The following patch fixes that inconsistency, without delving into anything more controversial. From: Chris Snook The volatile keyword has already been removed from the declaration of atomic_t on x86_64. For consistency, remove it from atomic64_t as well. Signed-off-by: Chris Snook CC: Andi Kleen --- a/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h 2007-07-08 19:32:17.000000000 -0400 +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h 2007-09-13 11:30:51.000000000 -0400 @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_sub_return( /* An 64bit atomic type */ -typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t; +typedef struct { long counter; } atomic64_t; #define ATOMIC64_INIT(i) { (i) }