From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:01:32 -0700 > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:03:27PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: >> For atomic_read it shouldn't matter unless gcc is *really* bad at it. >> Ah, for atomic_read, the required semantic is surely ACCESS_ONCE, so >> that's where the volatile is needed? (maybe it would be clearer to >> explicitly use ACCESS_ONCE?) > > Explicit use of ACCESS_ONCE() where needed makes a lot of sense to me, > and allows better code to be generated for initialization and cleanup > code where no other task has access to the atomic_t. I agree and I want to see this too, but I think with the tree the size that it is we have to work backwards at this point. Existing behavior by default, and optimized cases get tagged by using a new interface (atomic_read_light(), test_bit{,s}_light(), etc.) -- 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