Russell King writes: > Let me say it more clearly: On ARM, it is impossible to perform atomic > operations on MMIO space. Actually, no one is suggesting that we try to do that at all. The discussion about RMW ops on MMIO space started with a comment attributed to the gcc developers that one reason why gcc on x86 doesn't use instructions that do RMW ops on volatile variables is that volatile is used to mark MMIO addresses, and there was some uncertainty about whether (non-atomic) RMW ops on x86 could be used on MMIO. This is in regard to the question about why gcc on x86 always moves a volatile variable into a register before doing anything to it. So the whole discussion is irrelevant to ARM, PowerPC and any other architecture except x86[-64]. Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org 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 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
- Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
- Prev by Date: SDRAM problem
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Smack: Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel
- 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):
![]() |