On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 16:59 +1100, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > Michael, > > > Wouldn't this still be a problem on a UP kernel? > > I don't believe so - stores should be ordered with respect to the > current CPU, and in the UP case we still get a barrier().
But what if the CPU decides to do the store to the enable_mask before the stores to the other fields? cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
