From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755102Ab0EQUN7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 16:13:59 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:35599 "EHLO mail2.shareable.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753883Ab0EQUN6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 16:13:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:13:39 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Anton Blanchard , akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@linux.intel.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: atomic_t: Remove volatile from atomic_t definition Message-ID: <20100517201339.GJ20356@shareable.org> References: <20100517043353.GA22127@kryten> <20100517043457.GA22416@kryten> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 May 2010, Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > > It turns out this bad code is a result of us defining atomic_t as a > > volatile int. > > Heh. Ok, as you point out in the commit message, I obviously agree with > this patch. "volatile" on data is evil, with the possible exception of > "jiffies" type things. I wonder if extern unsigned long __nv_jiffies; #define jiffies (*(volatile unsigned long *)*__nv_jiffies) would improve any code in the same way as this atomic_t change. -- Jamie