On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 19:35 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > That said, on power, you have that "ACCESS_ONCE()" implicit in the > *type*, not in the code, so an "arch_spinlock_t" is fundamentally > volatile in itself. It's one of the reasons I despise "volatile": > things like volatility are _not_ attributes of a variable or a type, > but of the code in question. Something can be volatile in one context, > but not in another (one context might be locked, for example).
Right, we can probably change that to use ACCESS_ONCE... volatile tend to never quite do what you expect anyway. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
