Regardless of the greater controversy about the semantics of atomic_t, I think we can all agree that atomic_t and atomic64_t should have the same semantics. This is presently not the case on x86_64, where the volatile keyword was removed from the declaration of atomic_t, but it was not removed from the declaration of atomic64_t. The following patch fixes that inconsistency, without delving into anything more controversial.
From: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The volatile keyword has already been removed from the declaration of atomic_t on x86_64. For consistency, remove it from atomic64_t as well. Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- a/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h 2007-07-08 19:32:17.000000000 -0400 +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/atomic.h 2007-09-13 11:30:51.000000000 -0400 @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static __inline__ int atomic_sub_return( /* An 64bit atomic type */ -typedef struct { volatile long counter; } atomic64_t; +typedef struct { long counter; } atomic64_t; #define ATOMIC64_INIT(i) { (i) } - 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/