Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM

> I suspect the best thing at this point is to move the sync in writeX()
> before the store, as you suggest, and add an "eieio" before the load
> in readX().  That does mean that we are then relying on driver writers
> putting in the mmiowb() between a writeX() and a spin_unlock, but at
> least that is documented.

Well, why keep the sync in writel then ? Isn't it agreed that the driver
should use an explicit barrier ? Or did I misunderstand Linus ?

Ben.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
  • Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
    • From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/3] FRV: Permit __do_IRQ() to be dispensed with
• Next by Date: Re: [BUG/PATCH] make deb-pkg: optionally use fakeroot
• Previous by thread: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
• Next by thread: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]