Hi! > > Alan thinks that `subj` is correct... > > More precisely, reads and writes of pointers are always atomic. That > is, if a write and a read occur concurrently, it is guaranteed that the > read will obtain either the old or the new value of the pointer, never > a mish-mash of the two. If this were not so then RCU wouldn't work. Ok, so linux actually atomicity of long? If so, this should probably be applied... Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx> diff --git a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt b/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt index 4ef2450..0a7d180 100644 --- a/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt +++ b/Documentation/atomic_ops.txt @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ local_t is very similar to atomic_t. If updated by one CPU, local_t is probably more appropriate. Please see Documentation/local_ops.txt for the semantics of local_t. +long (and int and void *) can be used instead of atomic_t, if all you +need is atomic setting and atomic reading. + The first operations to implement for atomic_t's are the initializers and plain reads. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
