From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: force read of atomic_t in while loop Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:28:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20070808102835.GC14530@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20070808093300.GA14530@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070808.032131.35507346.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mtagate5.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.138]:19825 "EHLO mtagate5.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750829AbXHHK3e (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Aug 2007 06:29:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070808.032131.35507346.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Heiko Carstens > Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200 > > > Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops. > > Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure. > > I think whatever the choice, it should be done consistently > on every architecture. > > It's just asking for trouble if your arch does it differently from > every other. Well..currently it's i386/x86_64 and s390 which have no volatile in atomic_t. And yes, of course I agree it should be consistent across all architectures. But it isn't.