Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756466AbZJZTmT (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:42:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756405AbZJZTmQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:42:16 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:60627 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756380AbZJZTmO (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:42:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4AE5F9B9.2010707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> References: <7ADB5FD7-9C97-4987-BC20-997258B25FD2@noahdesu.com> <4AE5F04E.3050908@nortel.com> <4AE5F9B9.2010707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: "Leonidas ." , Chris Friesen , linux-kernel Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Noah Watkins Subject: Re: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:42:50 -0700 To: Stefan Richter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 763 Lines: 23 > Noah Watkins wrote: >>> So we can safely assume that pointer assignment will be done in an >>> atomic manner? >> >> See the the comment above rcu_assign_pointer in >> include/linux/rcupdate.h > > This comment only talks about ordering, not about atomicity. Ahh, yeh that's true. > > Again, AFAIR the ISO C spec should explain what is going to be > guaranteed atomic and what might not be atomic. This seems likely. I wonder if there are any strange architectures out there that have some insane implementation. > -- 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/