On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:57 AM Nadav Amit <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’ll have a look at some specific function assembly, but overall, the “+m” > approach might prevent even more code optimizations than the “volatile” one.
Ok, that being the case, let's forget that patch.
I still wonder about the added volatiles to the xadd/cmpxchg cases,
which already had the "memory" clobber which should make the volatile
immaterial..
Linus
