Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:

But barriers force a flush of *everything* in scope, which we generally don't
want.  On the other hand, we pretty much always want to flush atomic_*
operations.  One way or another, we should be restricting the volatile
behavior to the thing that needs it.  On most architectures, this patch set
just moves that from the declaration, where it is considered harmful, to the
use, where it is considered an occasional necessary evil.

Then we would need

	atomic_read()

and

	atomic_read_volatile()

atomic_read_volatile() would imply an object sized memory barrier before 
and after?