Re: LDD3 pitfalls (was Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures)

2007-08-20 Thread Chris Snook
Stefan Richter wrote: Nick Piggin wrote: Stefan Richter wrote: Nick Piggin wrote: I don't know why people would assume volatile of atomics. AFAIK, most of the documentation is pretty clear that all the atomic stuff can be reordered etc. except for those that modify and return a value.

Re: LDD3 pitfalls (was Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures)

2007-08-20 Thread Chris Snook
Stefan Richter wrote: Nick Piggin wrote: Stefan Richter wrote: Nick Piggin wrote: I don't know why people would assume volatile of atomics. AFAIK, most of the documentation is pretty clear that all the atomic stuff can be reordered etc. except for those that modify and return a value.

LDD3 pitfalls (was Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures)

2007-08-18 Thread Stefan Richter
Nick Piggin wrote: > Stefan Richter wrote: >> Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>> I don't know why people would assume volatile of atomics. AFAIK, most >>> of the documentation is pretty clear that all the atomic stuff can be >>> reordered etc. except for those that modify and return a value. >> >> >> Which

LDD3 pitfalls (was Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures)

2007-08-18 Thread Stefan Richter
Nick Piggin wrote: Stefan Richter wrote: Nick Piggin wrote: I don't know why people would assume volatile of atomics. AFAIK, most of the documentation is pretty clear that all the atomic stuff can be reordered etc. except for those that modify and return a value. Which documentation is