From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750859AbWGFVBi (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:01:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750858AbWGFVBi (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:01:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:19865 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750857AbWGFVBh (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:01:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:00:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Friesen cc: Mark Lord , Arjan van de Ven , "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] spinlocks: remove 'volatile' In-Reply-To: <44AD752D.3090405@nortel.com> Message-ID: References: <20060705114630.GA3134@elte.hu> <20060705101059.66a762bf.akpm@osdl.org> <20060705193551.GA13070@elte.hu> <20060705131824.52fa20ec.akpm@osdl.org> <20060705204727.GA16615@elte.hu> <20060705214502.GA27597@elte.hu> <20060706081639.GA24179@elte.hu> <1152187268.3084.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <44AD5357.4000100@rtr.ca> <44AD658A.5070005@nortel.com> <44AD752D.3090405@nortel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Chris Friesen wrote: > > But for someone coding to POSIX, is there any reason why they would use > barriers? If so, what API would they use? The POSIX thread api? Anyway, who cares? The final word on the kernel is that "volatile" is wrong. Arguing against that standpoint is pointless, especially since other real kernel developers have already stood up to back me up on this. In user programs, you can do whatever you damn well please. I don't care, it's not my problem. Linus