Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762673AbXHOQIt (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:08:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757060AbXHOQIg (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:08:36 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:34204 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756698AbXHOQIf (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:08:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:08:30 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Herbert Xu Cc: Satyam Sharma , Stefan Richter , Christoph Lameter , Chris Snook , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , ak@suse.de, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au, wjiang@resilience.com, cfriesen@nortel.com, zlynx@acm.org, rpjday@mindspring.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, segher@kernel.crashing.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures Message-ID: <20070815160830.GC9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20070809131423.GA9927@shell.boston.redhat.com> <46C2D6F3.3070707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <46C2FADB.7020407@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070815142516.GB9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070815153335.GA23593@gondor.apana.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070815153335.GA23593@gondor.apana.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 797 Lines: 20 On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:33:36PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:25:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Do we really need another set of APIs? Can you give even one example > > where the pre-existing volatile semantics are causing enough of a problem > > to justify adding yet more atomic_*() APIs? > > Let's turn this around. Can you give a single example where > the volatile semantics is needed in a legitimate way? Sorry, but you are the one advocating for the change. Nice try, though! ;-) Thanx, Paul - 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/