Re: volatile or not volatile

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:17:49PM +0100, Frank A. Uepping wrote:
> Do these mechanisms (spinlocks, semaphores, atomic_t) make sure
> that they always operate on the most actual versions of the shared data?
> Have I to do some *special action* to ensure this, like qualifying the shared 
> data volatile?
> What mechanism exists to enforce *memory sync* anyway?

Combinbing semaphores or spinlocks with memory barriers will enforce
this. See mb(), wmb() (write memory barrier), and rmb() (read memory
barrier).

Of course, using volatile on primitive types should do the job too.

-- 
"I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling
to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are
so eager to regulate everyone else's." -- Kee Hinckley

Attachment: pgp00344.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Mentors]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [IETF Annouce]     [Git]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ACPI]
  Powered by Linux