x86[-64]:Remove 'volatile' from atomic_t
Any code that relies on the volatile would be a bug waiting to happen anyway. Don't encourage people to think that putting 'volatile' on data structures somehow fixes problems. We should always use proper locking (and other serialization) techniques. Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
16afea0255
commit
f9e9dcb38f
2 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
|
|||
* on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
|
||||
* not some alias that contains the same information.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
|
||||
typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
|
||||
|
||||
#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
|
|||
* on us. We need to use _exactly_ the address the user gave us,
|
||||
* not some alias that contains the same information.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
|
||||
typedef struct { int counter; } atomic_t;
|
||||
|
||||
#define ATOMIC_INIT(i) { (i) }
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue