Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:58:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:58:20 -0400 Received: from sncgw.nai.com ([161.69.248.229]:48883 "EHLO mcafee-labs.nai.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:58:13 -0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.7 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:01:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi To: Alexander Viro Subject: Re: user-mode port 0.44-2.4.7 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrea Arcangeli , Jeff Dike , user-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Hubicka , Jonathan Lundell Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing On 24-Jul-2001 Alexander Viro wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Davide Libenzi wrote: > >> One more thing, with volatile you specify it one time ( declaration time ), >> while with barrier() you've to spread inside the code tons of such macro >> everywhere you touch the variable. > > That's the whole point, damnit. Syntax (or semantics) sugar is a Bad Thing(tm). > If your algorithm depends on something in a nontrivial way - _spell_ _it_ _out_. I would not call, to pretend the compiler to issue memory loads every time it access a variable, a nontrivial way. It sounds pretty clear to me. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/