On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 06:28:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > The udelay itself certainly should have some form of cpu_relax in it. > > Yes, a form of barrier() must be present in mdelay() or udelay() itself > as you say, having it in __const_udelay() is *not* enough (superflous > actually, considering it is already a separate translation unit and > invisible to the compiler). As long as __const_udelay does something which has the same effect as barrier it is enough even if it's in the same unit. As a matter of fact it does on i386 where __delay either uses rep_nop or asm/volatile. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - 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:
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <[email protected]>
- [no subject]
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: your mail
- From: Herbert Xu <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Index(es):
 |