On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> Because atomic operations are generally used for synchronization, which
> requires volatile behavior. Most such codepaths currently use an inefficient
> barrier(). Some forget to and we get bugs, because people assume that
> atomic_read() actually reads something, and atomic_write() actually writes
> something. Worse, these are architecture-specific, even compiler
> version-specific bugs that are often difficult to track down.
Looks like we need to have lock and unlock semantics?
atomic_read()
which has no barrier or volatile implications.
atomic_read_for_lock
Acquire semantics?
atomic_read_for_unlock
Release semantics?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
