Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755915AbXHQEMf (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:12:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752003AbXHQEM2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:12:28 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:55646 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751434AbXHQEM0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:12:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:54:50 +0530 (IST) From: Satyam Sharma X-X-Sender: satyam@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in To: Segher Boessenkool cc: Christoph Lameter , heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, horms@verge.net.au, Stefan Richter , Bill Fink , 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, davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures In-Reply-To: <4952d3f536060c186f40c277dfc74194@kernel.crashing.org> Message-ID: References: <20070809131423.GA9927@shell.boston.redhat.com> <46C2D6F3.3070707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070815233721.91032366.billfink@mindspring.com> <4952d3f536060c186f40c277dfc74194@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1127 Lines: 30 On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > Note that "volatile" > > is a type-qualifier, not a type itself, so a cast of the _object_ itself > > to a qualified-type i.e. (volatile int) would not make the access itself > > volatile-qualified. > > There is no such thing as "volatile-qualified access" defined > anywhere; there only is the concept of a "volatile-qualified > *object*". Sure, "volatile-qualified access" was not some standard term I used there. Just something to mean "an access that would make the compiler treat the object at that memory as if it were an object with a volatile-qualified type". Now the second wording *IS* technically correct, but come on, it's 24 words long whereas the original one was 3 -- and hopefully anybody reading the shorter phrase *would* have known anyway what was meant, without having to be pedantic about it :-) Satyam - 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/