Re: [PATCH] Make cpu_relax() imply barrier() on all arches

On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 11:10 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> 
>  include/asm-frv/processor.h       |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-h8300/processor.h     |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-m68knommu/processor.h |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-sh/processor.h        |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-sh64/processor.h      |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-v850/processor.h      |    3 ++-
>  include/asm-xtensa/processor.h    |    3 ++-

cpu_relax() indeed is supposed have barrier() semantics!


Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

-
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:
  • [PATCH] Make cpu_relax() imply barrier() on all arches
    • From: Chase Venters <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Opinions on removing /proc/tty?
• Next by Date: Re: Opinions on removing /proc/tty?
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] Make cpu_relax() imply barrier() on all arches
• Next by thread: INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
• 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]