On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 02:36:27 +0400
Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 10:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Feeling like a nit pervert but..
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:15:26PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >> @@ -287,7 +287,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> >> * Should the accounting and control be hierarchical, per subtree?
> >> */
> >> bool use_hierarchy;
> >> - bool kmem_accounted;
> >> + /*
> >> + * bit0: accounted by this cgroup
> >> + * bit1: accounted by a parent.
> >> + */
> >> + volatile unsigned long kmem_accounted;
> >
> > Is the volatile declaration really necessary? Why is it necessary?
> > Why no comment explaining it?
>
> Seems to be required by set_bit and friends. gcc will complain if it is
> not volatile (take a look at the bit function headers)
That would be a broken gcc. We run test_bit()/set_bit() and friends
against plain old `unsigned long' in thousands of places. There's
nothing special about this one!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>