Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:52:09 -0700 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: atomic increment? Message-ID: <200012181852.eBIIq9P22217@berserker.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:40:15 PST." <200012181740.eBIHeFw65943@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
} }However, I still doubt that volatile is needed on the atomic ops (such }as atomic increment) themselves. It instead belongs specifically on }the code that uses them for locking / unlocking. In other words, }atomic increment can be used for many things, and most of them don't }require volatile. } }Note, I'm coming in late on this thread, so it's entirely possible }I'm preaching to the choir. :-) } At least partially. This is what got me to "not all uses of atomics are equal." Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012181852.eBIIq9P22217>