On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:33:36PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:25:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > Do we really need another set of APIs? Can you give even one example > > > where the pre-existing volatile semantics are causing enough of a problem > > > to justify adding yet more atomic_*() APIs? > > > > Let's turn this around. Can you give a single example where > > the volatile semantics is needed in a legitimate way? > > Sorry, but you are the one advocating for the change. Not for i386 and x86_64 -- those have atomic ops without any "volatile" semantics (currently as per existing definitions). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
