Re: [discuss] Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?

>>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <[email protected]> writes:

Andi> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 18:06, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>>  A job for mmiowb() perhaps?

Andi> No, normal IO mappings are also not write combining on x86, so
Andi> it's not needed there.

True, just seemed nasty to have yet another special purpose wmb()
variation.

Cheers,
Jes
-
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:
  • Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
    • From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
    • From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <[email protected]>
  • Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
    • From: Jes Sorensen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [discuss] Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Notifier chain update
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
• Previous by thread: Re: [discuss] Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
• Next by thread: Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
• 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]