[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> So yes, the atomic_read() would be ordered wrt '*ptr' (getting 'q')
> _and_ '**ptr' (getting 'i'), but nothing else - including just the
> aliasing access of dereferencing 'i' directly.

Btw, what CPU architects and memory ordering guys tend to do in
documentation is give a number of "litmus test" pseudo-code sequences
to show the effects and intent of the language.

I think giving those kinds of litmus tests for both "this is ordered"
and "this is not ordered" cases like the above is would be a great
clarification. Partly because the language is going to be somewhat
legalistic and thus hard to wrap your mind around, and partly to
really hit home the *intent* of the language, which I think is
actually fairly clear to both compiler writers and to programmers.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-24 18:21    [W:0.296 / U:2.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site