On Friday 17 August 2007 05:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul Mackerras wrote:

quoted

I'm really surprised it's as much as a few K.  I tried it on powerpc
and it only saved 40 bytes (10 instructions) for a G5 config.

One of the things that "volatile" generally screws up is a simple

	volatile int i;

	i++;

But for atomic_t people use atomic_inc() anyways which does this correctly.
It shouldn't really matter for atomic_t.

I'm worrying a bit that the volatile atomic_t change caused subtle code 
breakage like these delay read loops people here pointed out.
Wouldn't it be safer to just re-add the volatile to atomic_read() 
for 2.6.23? Or alternatively make it asm(), but volatile seems more
proven.

-Andi