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]