On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 06:43:54PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:22:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:29:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > The "KERNEL I/O BARRIER EFFECTS" section of memory-barriers.txt is vague,
> > > x86-centric, out-of-date, incomplete and demonstrably incorrect in places.
> > > This is largely because I/O ordering is a horrible can of worms, but also
> > > because the document has stagnated as our understanding has evolved.
> > >
> > > Attempt to address some of that, by rewriting the section based on
> > > recent(-ish) discussions with Arnd, BenH and others. Maybe one day we'll
> > > find a way to formalise this stuff, but for now let's at least try to
> > > make the English easier to understand.
> > >
> > > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.pa...@amarulasolutions.com>
> > > Cc: Daniel Lustig <dlus...@nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > > cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> >
> > Hello, Will,
> >
> > The intent is to replace commit 3f305018dcf3 ("docs/memory-barriers.txt:
> > Enforce heavy ordering for port I/O accesses"), correct? Either way is
> > fine, just guessing based on the conflicts when applying this one. ;-)
>
> Yup, I decided to abandon the old patch:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190211153043.gc32...@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com
Got it, and thank you for the reminder!
Thanx, Paul
