Re: (*(unsigned long *)&jiffies)++;

Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:49:03 +0100 (CET)


On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

>However, the C-code hack to force reordering is incorrect. It ties

jiffies is volatile so the increment won't be reordered.

And the only reason we make jiffies volatile is for the readers and _not_
for the only writer (do_timer) we are discussing about. In do_timer
there's no problem if the compiler reoder or cache jiffies in regs for
some time.

Andrea

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/