Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code

    Bryan> It's purely a performance optimisation.  Since we tune very
    Bryan> closely to each CPU, there's no point right now in
    Bryan> sort-of-tuning for a CPU that doesn't yet exist :-)

I thought that if ipath_unordered_wc() returns false then you assume
the writes through a WC mapping go in order.  If Via behaves like
Intel and reorders writes, but ipath_unordered_wc() returns false,
then won't your driver break in a subtle way?

 - R.
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code
  - From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code
  - From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code
  - From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] chelsio/espi.c:tricn_init(): remove dead code
Next by Date: [PATCH 1/1]: arm: _syscallX() macros must mark "memory" as clobbered
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 7 of 20] ipath - misc driver support code
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]