Re: [PATCH 10/23] make atomic_read() and atomic_set() behavior consistent on ia64

[Chris Snook]

Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Luck, Tony wrote:

I re-tried the macros ... the three warnings from mm/slub.c all result in
broken code ... and quite rightly too, they all come from code that does:

        atomic_read(&n->nr_slabs)

But the nr_slabs field is an atomic_long_t, so we shouldn't be using
atomic_read().  I didn't spot these last time around because I was using
slab, not slub for the previous build.

Hmmmm...  Strange that this did not cause failures before on any other 
platforms?

Prior to the patch in question, atomic_read was a macro.  I didn't use slub in 
my cursory testing.  Tony had ia64 under a microscope because of the tricky 
memory access ordering semantics of that architecture.

        -- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html