-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 17:35:25 +0530
> From: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>
> To: Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]>
> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Honnappa Nagarahalli
>  <[email protected]>, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
>  <[email protected]>, "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)"
>  <[email protected]>, Steve Capper <[email protected]>, nd <[email protected]>,
>  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] ring: read tail using atomic load
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
> 
> External Email
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:59:16 +0000
> > From: Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]>
> > To: Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>
> > CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Honnappa Nagarahalli
> >  <[email protected]>, "Ananyev, Konstantin"
> >  <[email protected]>, "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)"
> >  <[email protected]>, Steve Capper <[email protected]>, nd <[email protected]>,
> >  "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ring: read tail using atomic load
> > user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.11.0.180909
> >
> >
> > On 08/10/2018, 13:50, "Jerin Jacob" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     I don't know how that creates more undefined behavior. So replied in the
> >     context of your reply that, according to your view even Linux is running
> >     with undefined behavior.
> >
> > As I explained, Linux does not use C11 atomics (nor GCC __atomic builtins) 
> > so
> > cannot express the kind of undefined behaviour caused by mixing conflicting 
> > atomic
> > (as defined by the C11 standard) and non-atomic accesses to the same object.
> >
> > Checked the latest version from https://github.com/torvalds/linux
> 
> Yet another top post. So you removed the complete earlier context. Never
> mind.
> 
> I am not saying Linux is using C11 atomic. I asked, Can't we follow
> like Linux to use the HW feature of load acquire and store release
> semantics with introducing C11 memory model.

correction:

s/with introducing C11 memory model/with out introducing C11 memory model

> 
> 
> 
> >
> >

Reply via email to