Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934954AbXHOVAe (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:00:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752589AbXHOVAI (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:00:08 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:50843 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752237AbXHOVAF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:00:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Lameter , heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, horms@verge.net.au, Stefan Richter , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Paul E. McKenney" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, cfriesen@nortel.com, rpjday@mindspring.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , zlynx@acm.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, Chris Snook , Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, Linus Torvalds , wensong@linux-vs.org, wjiang@resilience.com From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:58:04 +0200 To: Satyam Sharma X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.623) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1093 Lines: 27 >>> Of course, if we find there are more callers in the kernel who want >>> the >>> volatility behaviour than those who don't care, we can re-define the >>> existing ops to such variants, and re-name the existing definitions >>> to >>> somethine else, say "atomic_read_nonvolatile" for all I care. >> >> Do we really need another set of APIs? > > Well, if there's one set of users who do care about volatile behaviour, > and another set that doesn't, it only sounds correct to provide both > those APIs, instead of forcing one behaviour on all users. But since there currently is only one such API, and there are users expecting the stronger behaviour, the only sane thing to do is let the API provide that behaviour. You can always add a new API with weaker behaviour later, and move users that are okay with it over to that new API. Segher - 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/