Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful" document

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Bill Davidsen
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 4:26 pm

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Yes, why would you use rmb() when a read of a volatile generates optimal 
code?

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] &quot;volatile considered harmful&quot; document, Robert Hancock, (Sat May 12, 11:32 am)
Re: [PATCH] &quot;volatile considered harmful&quot; document, Krzysztof Halasa, (Sun May 13, 9:30 am)
Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful" document, Bill Davidsen, (Sun May 13, 4:26 pm)
[2.6.21] circular locking dependency found in QUOTA OFF, Folkert van Heusden, (Mon May 14, 7:21 am)
Re: [2.6.21] circular locking dependency found in QUOTA OFF, Michal Piotrowski, (Mon May 14, 10:43 am)
Re: [2.6.21] circular locking dependency found in QUOTA OFF, Folkert van Heusden, (Mon May 14, 10:44 am)
Re: [2.6.21] circular locking dependency found in QUOTA OFF, Folkert van Heusden, (Tue May 15, 10:52 am)