From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932304AbWGHJqi (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:46:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932316AbWGHJqi (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:46:38 -0400 Received: from users.ccur.com ([66.10.65.2]:4233 "EHLO gamx.iccur.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932304AbWGHJqh (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:46:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 05:45:56 -0400 From: Joe Korty To: Albert Cahalan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-os@analogic.com, khc@pm.waw.pl, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org Subject: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile' Message-ID: <20060708094556.GA13254@tsunami.ccur.com> Reply-To: joe.korty@ccur.com References: <787b0d920607072054i237eebf5g8109a100623a1070@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <787b0d920607072054i237eebf5g8109a100623a1070@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:54:10PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > That's all theoretical though. Today, gcc's volatile does > not follow the C standard on modern hardware. Bummer. > It'd be low-performance anyway though. But gcc would follow the standard if it emitted a 'lock' insn on every volatile reference. It should at least have an option to do that. Joe