On Thursday 25 October 2007 17:15, Andi Kleen wrote:Although there can be cases where it looks much more like an optimisation (eg. where the branch and increment occurs much more often), but it would still be a bug. Granted they are rather constructed cases, but I don't think you want to rely on the fact that most of the time it's OK. Marking volatile I think is out of the question. To start with, volatile creates really poor code (and most of the time we actually do want the code in critical sections to be as tight as possible). But also because I don't think these bugs are just going to be found easily. Hard to know how to do it. If you can, then it would be interesting. -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Kok, Auke | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1 |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jeff Garzik | Re: [Patch v2] Make PCI extended config space (MMCONFIG) a driver opt-in |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Eric Dumazet | [PATCH] net: remove superfluous call to synchronize_net() |
