RE: [PATCH v2 2/6] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops

["Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> It's listed in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt.
>
> Oh, so my memory was actually correct that I saw it in the docs
> somewhere.
> WDYT, should I mention this here in the code (block comment) as well
> that it's atomic and must not lose `volatile` as Andy suggested or
> it's sufficient to have it in the docs (+ it's not underscored)?

I think a comment that the "volatile" is required to prevent re-ordering
is enough.

But maybe others are sufficiently clear on the meaning? I once wasted
time looking for the non-atomic __test_bit() version (to use in some code
that was already protected by a spin lock, so didn't need the overhead
of an "atomic" version) before realizing there wasn't a non-atomic one.

-Tony