On Sep 10, 2007, at 12:46:33, Denys Vlasenko wrote:

My point is that people are confused as to what atomic_read()   
exactly means, and this is bad. Same for cpu_relax().  First one  
says "read", and second one doesn't say "barrier".

Q&A:

Q:  When is it OK to use atomic_read()?
A:  You are asking the question, so never.

Q:  But I need to check the value of the atomic at this point in time...
A:  Your code is buggy if it needs to do that on an atomic_t for  
anything other than debugging or optimization.  Use either  
atomic_*_return() or a lock and some normal integers.

Q:  "So why can't the atomic_read DTRT magically?"
A:  Because "the right thing" depends on the situation and is usually  
best done with something other than atomic_t.

If somebody can post some non-buggy code which is correctly using  
atomic_read() *and* depends on the compiler generating extra  
nonsensical loads due to "volatile" then the issue *might* be  
reconsidered.  This also includes samples of code which uses  
atomic_read() and needs memory barriers (so that we can fix the buggy  
code, not so we can change atomic_read()).  So far the only code  
samples anybody has posted are buggy regardless of whether or not the  
value and/or accessors are flagged "volatile" or not.  And hey, maybe  
the volatile ops *should* be implemented in inline ASM for future- 
proof-ness, but that's a separate issue.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett