RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> > I think we could say that lock semantics are different from barriers. They 
> > are more like acquire and release on IA64. The problem with smb_mb_*** is 
> > that the coder *explicitly* requested a barrier operation and we do not 
> > give it to him.
> 
> I was browsing sparc64 code and it defines:
> 
> include/asm-sparc64/bitops.h:
> #define smp_mb__after_clear_bit()      membar_storeload_storestore()
> 
> With my very naïve knowledge of sparc64, it doesn't look like a full barrier.
> Maybe sparc64 is broken too ...

Dave, how does sparc64 handle this situation?

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• References:
  • RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
    • From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] 9p: cleanup unused functions
• Next by Date: Oops: mounting floppy disk on PPC64 (power3)
• Previous by thread: RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
• Next by thread: Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
• 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]