Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763920AbXHQKKn (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:10:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755365AbXHQKKa (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:10:30 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:33357 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755751AbXHQKK2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Aug 2007 06:10:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:53:02 +0530 (IST) From: Satyam Sharma X-X-Sender: satyam@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in To: Paul Mackerras cc: Nick Piggin , Linus Torvalds , Segher Boessenkool , heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, horms@verge.net.au, Linux Kernel Mailing List , rpjday@mindspring.com, ak@suse.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, cfriesen@nortel.com, Andrew Morton , jesper.juhl@gmail.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, zlynx@acm.org, clameter@sgi.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, Chris Snook , Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, wensong@linux-vs.org, wjiang@resilience.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures In-Reply-To: <18117.28409.943948.355586@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <46C32618.2080108@redhat.com> <20070815234021.GA28775@gondor.apana.org.au> <3694fb2e4ed1e4d9bf873c0d050c911e@kernel.crashing.org> <46C3B50E.7010702@yahoo.com.au> <194369f4c96ea0e24decf8f9197d5bad@kernel.crashing.org> <46C505B2.6030704@yahoo.com.au> <18117.4848.695269.72976@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <46C54D94.5080803@yahoo.com.au> <18117.28409.943948.355586@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> 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: 870 Lines: 24 On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Satyam Sharma writes: > > > I wonder if this'll generate smaller and better code than _both_ the > > other atomic_read_volatile() variants. Would need to build allyesconfig > > on lots of diff arch's etc to test the theory though. > > I'm sure it would be a tiny effect. > > This whole thread is arguing about effects that are quite > insignificant. Hmm, the fact that this thread became what it did, probably means that most developers on this list do not mind thinking/arguing about effects or optimizations that are otherwise "tiny". But yeah, they are tiny nonetheless. - 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/