Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 17:18:32 +0800
From: Jerry Jiang <wjiang@resilience.com>
To: 7eggert@gmx.de
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de,
       heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au,
       cfriesen@nortel.com, zlynx@acm.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make atomic_t volatile on all architectures
Message-Id: <20070809171832.1568864b.wjiang@resilience.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1IJ424-0000d7-HK@be1.lrz>
References: <8Q2Pg-8uV-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
	<8Q7Fa-7rJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
	<8Q8rD-hh-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
	<E1IJ424-0000d7-HK@be1.lrz>
Organization: Resilience
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 817
Lines: 29

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:10:16 +0200
Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> wrote:

> > 
> > Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it
> > clear?
> 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/233482/

I have read this article before, but What Linus said only focusing on
the conclusion-- The semantics of it are so unclear as
to be totally useless.

and still not to said "Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is
acceptable"

-- Jerry


> -- 
> Fun things to slip into your budget
> Heisenberg Compensator upgrade kit
> 
> Friß, Spammer: uWfuXeviZ@x.7eggert.dyndns.org
-
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/