Am Samstag, 9. September 2006 00:25 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > Again you have misunderstood. The original code was _not_ incorrect. I
> > > was asking: Given the code as stated, would the assertion ever fail?
> >
> > I claim the right to call code that fails its own assertions incorrect. :-)
>
> Touche!
>
> > > The code _was_ correct for my purposes, namely, to illustrate a technical
> > > point about the behavior of memory barriers.
> >
> > I would say that the code may fail the assertion purely based
> > on the formal definition of a memory barrier. And do so in a subtle
> > and inobvious way.
>
> But what _is_ the formal definition of a memory barrier? I've never seen
> one that was complete and correct.
I' d say "mb();" is "rmb();wmb();"
and they work so that:
CPU 0
a = TRUE;
wmb();
b = TRUE;
CPU 1
if (b) {
rmb();
assert(a);
}
is correct. Possibly that is not a complete definition though.
Regards
Oliver
-
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/
[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]
