Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures

[Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 03:31:10AM -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
>  Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead.
> > The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C 
> > language. It shouldn't be used. Volatile accesses in *code* can be ok, and 
> > if we have "atomic_read()" expand to a "*(volatile int *)&(x)->value", then 
> > I'd be ok with that.
> > But marking data structures volatile just makes the compiler screw up 
> > totally, and makes code for initialization sequences etc much worse.
> > 		Linus
> 
>  Fair enough.  Casting to (volatile int *) will give us the behavior people 
>  expect when using atomic_t without needing to use inefficient barriers.
> 
>  While we have the hood up, should we convert all the atomic_t's to 
>  non-volatile and put volatile casts in all the atomic_reads?  I don't know 
>  enough about the various arches to say with confidence that those changes 
>  alone will preserve existing behavior.  We might need some arch-specific 
>  tweaking of the atomic operations.

If you write that patch could you include the atomic64 variants as well,
please? Besides that just post the patch to linux-arch and maintainers
should speak up.