On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:48:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:18:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > 
> > > No, I haven't seen the drafts
> > 
> > Ok, I have looked at the draft now, and I don't think I was overly 
> > pessimistic.
> > 
> > If I read it right, all the memory ordering operations are defined for 
> > _single_ objects. So if you want to do the kernel kind of memory ordering 
> > where you specify ordering requirements independently of the actual 
> > accesses (perhaps because the accesses are in some helper function that 
> > doesn't care, but then you want to "finalize" the thing by stating a 
> > sequence point), it seems to be impossible with current drafts.
> 
> You are looking for atomic_fence() on page 1168 (1154 virtual) of the
> most recent draft.  The current semantics are not correct, but this is
> being worked.  And yes, it does currently have a variable associated with
> it, but it acts as a bare fence nevertheless.  There is a proposal to
> drop the variable.  As you said in a previous email, design by committee.

And the proposal for variable-free memory-ordering operations was voted
into the draft standard:

	http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2731.html

Still not perfect, of course, but hopefully movement in the right
direction.

							Thanx, Paul
--
unsubscribe notice
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/