Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756408AbXHTNQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:16:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752712AbXHTNQn (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:16:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38646 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756021AbXHTNQk (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:16:40 -0400 Message-ID: <46C993DF.4080400@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:15:11 -0400 From: Chris Snook User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Nick Piggin , Satyam Sharma , Herbert Xu , Paul Mackerras , Christoph Lameter , Ilpo Jarvinen , "Paul E. McKenney" , Stefan Richter , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Netdev , Andrew Morton , ak@suse.de, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, David Miller , 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 References: <18115.52863.638655.658466@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070816053945.GB32442@gondor.apana.org.au> <18115.62741.807704.969977@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070816070907.GA964@gondor.apana.org.au> <46C4ABA5.9010804@redhat.com> <18117.1287.779351.836552@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <18117.6495.397597.582736@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070817035342.GA14744@gondor.apana.org.au> <46C55E90.7010407@yahoo.com.au> <46C56ADF.8010501@cyberone.com.au> <46C59717.4020108@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 751 Lines: 16 Linus Torvalds wrote: > So the only reason to add back "volatile" to the atomic_read() sequence is > not to fix bugs, but to _hide_ the bugs better. They're still there, they > are just a lot harder to trigger, and tend to be a lot subtler. What about barrier removal? With consistent semantics we could optimize a fair amount of code. Whether or not that constitutes "premature" optimization is open to debate, but there's no question we could reduce our register wiping in some places. -- Chris - 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/