On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> The barrier would guarantee that ioc->active (and in fact the write to
> the chip too above) are globally visible
No, it doesn't really guarantee that.
The thing is, there is no such thing as "globally visible".
There is a "ordering of visibility wrt CPU's", but it's not global, it's
quite potentially per-CPU. So a barrier on one CPU doesn't guarantee
anything at all without a barrier on the *other* CPU.
That said, the interrupt handling itself contains various barriers on the
CPU's that receive interrupts, thanks to the spinlocking. But I do agree
with Herbert that adding a "smb_mb()" is certainly in no way "obviously
correct", because it doesn't talk about what the other side does wrt
barriers and that word in memory.
Linus
-
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]
