Is there some feedback on this point ?
Thank you
./Jerry
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> prompted by the earlier post on "volatile"s, is there a reason that
> most atomic_t typedefs use volatile int's, while the rest don't?
>
> $ grep "typedef.*struct" $(find . -name atomic.h)
> ./include/asm-v850/atomic.h:typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
> ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
> ./include/asm-mips/atomic.h:typedef struct { volatile long counter; }
> atomic64_t;
> ...
>
> etc, etc. just curious.
>
> rday
> --
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day
> Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
> Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
>
> http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
> ========================================================================
> -
> 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/
>
>
-
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/
