Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > Things may not be quite as bad as they appear.  On many architectures the
> > store-mb-load pattern will work as expected.  (In fact, I don't know which
> > architectures it might fail on.)
> 
> Several weak-memory-ordering CPUs.  :-/

Of the CPUs supported by Linux, do you know which ones will work with
store-mb-load and which ones won't?

Alan

-
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] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
    • From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2.6.19-rc6 6/6] rtc-omap driver
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/11] Add __GFP_MOVABLE flag and update callers
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
• Next by thread: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
• 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]