Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:28:35 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       netdev@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org,
       horms@verge.net.au
Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: force read of atomic_t in while loop
Message-ID: <20070808102835.GC14530@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
References: <20070808093300.GA14530@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20070808.032131.35507346.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070808.032131.35507346.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 877
Lines: 21

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:21:31AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:33:00 +0200
> 
> > Just saw this while grepping for atomic_reads in a while loops.
> > Maybe we should re-add the volatile to atomic_t. Not sure.
> 
> I think whatever the choice, it should be done consistently
> on every architecture.
> 
> It's just asking for trouble if your arch does it differently from
> every other.

Well..currently it's i386/x86_64 and s390 which have no volatile
in atomic_t. And yes, of course I agree it should be consistent
across all architectures. But it isn't.
-
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/