On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 13:39 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:15:18 +0100
> Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 10:28 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:11:38 +0100
> > > Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > static inline u64 rtnl_link_stats64_read(const u64 *field)
> > > > {
> > > > 	return ACCESS_ONCE(*field);
> > > > }
> > > > static inline u32 rtnl_link_stats64_read32(const u64 *field)
> > > > {
> > > > 	return ACCESS_ONCE(*field);
> > > > }
> > > 
> > > Do we really care if compiler reorders access. I think not.
> > > There was no order guarantee in the past.
> > 
> > Since these reads are potentially racing with writes, we want to ensure
> > that they are atomic.  Without the volatile-qualification, the compiler
> > can legitimately split or repeat the reads, though I don't see any
> > particular reason why this is a likely optimisation.
> > 
> > Ben.
> > 
> 
> But this part of the code is only being run on on 64 bit machines.
> Updates of basic types for the CPU are atomic, lots of other code
> already assumes this.
> Take off your tin hat, this is excessive paranoia.

I like my tin hat, I'm sure I saw more oopses before I put it on. ;-)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html