Re: why are some atomic_t's not volatile, while most are?

[Chris Friesen]

Chris Snook wrote:

> If your architecture doesn't support SMP, the volatile keyword doesn't 
> do anything except add a useless memory fetch.

I was under the impression that there were other cases as well 
(interrupt handlers, for instance) where the value could be modified 
"behind the back" of the current code.

It seems like this would fall more into the case of the arch providing 
guarantees when using locked/atomic access rather than anything 
SMP-related, no?.

Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/