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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
