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

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 11:33:36PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:25:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

Do we really need another set of APIs?  Can you give even one example
where the pre-existing volatile semantics are causing enough of a problem
to justify adding yet more atomic_*() APIs?

Let's turn this around.  Can you give a single example where
the volatile semantics is needed in a legitimate way?

Sorry, but you are the one advocating for the change.

Not for i386 and x86_64 -- those have atomic ops without any "volatile"
semantics (currently as per existing definitions).