Messages in this thread | | | From | Segher Boessenkool <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures | Date | Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:32:03 +0200 |
| |
>>>> Part of the motivation here is to fix heisenbugs. If I knew where >>>> they >>> >>> >>> By the same token we should probably disable optimisations >>> altogether since that too can create heisenbugs. >> Almost everything is a tradeoff; and so is this. I don't >> believe most people would find disabling all compiler >> optimisations an acceptable price to pay for some peace >> of mind. > > So why is this a good tradeoff?
It certainly is better than disabling all compiler optimisations!
> I also think that just adding things to APIs in the hope it might fix > up some bugs isn't really a good road to go down. Where do you stop?
I look at it the other way: keeping the "volatile" semantics in atomic_XXX() (or adding them to it, whatever) helps _prevent_ bugs; certainly most people expect that behaviour, and also that behaviour is *needed* in some places and no other interface provides that functionality.
[some confusion about barriers wrt atomics snipped]
Segher
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |