On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > Are you sure it won't reorder anything there that actually relies on the > > atomic access to have succeeded? I suggest adding barrier() after the > > loop. > > None of the things that were touched by the code had any barrier > functionality Some of the functions such as atomic_add don't provide > memory barriers but where needed a barrier was always provided by C code > near the end of the function, for example in atomic_add_return. OK, if you are sure this is safe, then I see no problem here. Maciej
