Paul Mackerras wrote:
Chris Snook writes:
I'll do this for the whole patchset. Stay tuned for the resubmit.
Could you incorporate Segher's patch to turn atomic_{read,set} into
asm on powerpc? Segher claims that using asm is really the only
reliable way to ensure that gcc does what we want,
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
Paul Mackerras wrote:
Chris Snook writes:
I'll do this for the whole patchset. Stay tuned for the resubmit.
Could you incorporate Segher's patch to turn atomic_{read,set} into
asm on powerpc? Segher claims that using asm is really the only
That's distressing. I'm about to resubmit with a volatile cast in
atomic_set as well, since people expect that behavior and I've been
shown a legitimate case where it could matter. Does the assembly look
right with that cast in atomic_set() as well?
No. With the casts to volatile in
Luck, Tony wrote:
+#define atomic_read(v) (*(volatile __s32 *)(v)-counter)
+#define atomic64_read(v) (*(volatile __s64 *)(v)-counter)
#define atomic_set(v,i)(((v)-counter) = (i))
#define atomic64_set(v,i) (((v)-counter) = (i))
Losing the volatile from the
Luck, Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's distressing. I'm about to resubmit with a volatile cast in
atomic_set as well, since people expect that behavior and I've been
shown a legitimate case where it could matter. Does the assembly look
right with that cast in atomic_set() as well?
Use atomic64_read to read an atomic64_t.
Thanks Andreas!
Chris: This bug is why the 8-byte loads got changed to 4-byte + sign-extend
by your change to atomic_read().
With this applied together with shuffling the volatile from the
declaration to the usage (in both atomic_read() and atomic_set()
Luck, Tony wrote:
Use atomic64_read to read an atomic64_t.
Thanks Andreas!
Chris: This bug is why the 8-byte loads got changed to 4-byte + sign-extend
by your change to atomic_read().
I figured as much. Thanks for confirming this.
With this applied together with shuffling the volatile
Possibly. Either that or we've uncovered some latent bugs. Maybe a
combination of the two. Can you list those 19 changes so we can
evaluate them?
Here are the functions in which they occur in the object file. You
may have to chase down some inlining to find the function that
actually uses
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Luck, Tony wrote:
Here are the functions in which they occur in the object file. You
may have to chase down some inlining to find the function that
actually uses atomic_*().
Could you just make the atomic_read() and atomic_set() functions be
inline functions instead?
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Luck, Tony wrote:
Here are the functions in which they occur in the object file. You
may have to chase down some inlining to find the function that
actually uses atomic_*().
Could you just make the atomic_read() and atomic_set() functions be
inline
Here are the functions in which they occur in the object file. You
may have to chase down some inlining to find the function that
actually uses atomic_*().
Ignore this ... Andreas' patch was only two lines so I
thought I'd save time by just hand-editing the source over
on my build machine. I
Chris Snook writes:
I'll do this for the whole patchset. Stay tuned for the resubmit.
Could you incorporate Segher's patch to turn atomic_{read,set} into
asm on powerpc? Segher claims that using asm is really the only
reliable way to ensure that gcc does what we want, and he seems to
have a
From: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Purify volatile use for atomic[64]_t on ia64.
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.23-rc2-orig/include/asm-ia64/atomic.h 2007-07-08
19:32:17.0 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc2/include/asm-ia64/atomic.h 2007-08-09
+#define atomic_read(v) (*(volatile __s32 *)(v)-counter)
+#define atomic64_read(v) (*(volatile __s64 *)(v)-counter)
#define atomic_set(v,i) (((v)-counter) = (i))
#define atomic64_set(v,i)(((v)-counter) = (i))
Losing the volatile from the set variants
14 matches
Mail list logo
