> > Given this is supposed to be portable code, I wonder if we should have > > atomic ordered memory accessors instead. > > > > Paul > > Could you clarify please? > > The infiniband bits I used as base are very portable, > I know they build on a ton of platforms. I just stripped > a couple of infiniband specific assumptions from there. > > Do you suggest we use __sync_synchronize? > Unfortunately this is broken or slow on many platforms. > I do use it when it seems safe or when we see a platform > we don't know about.
I mean have a single function that does both the atomic load/store and the memory barrier. Instead of: stw_phys(addr, val) barrier(); We do: stw_phys_barrier(addr, val). This avoids issues in the future (multithreaded TCG) where atomic memory accesses may be nontrivial. Paul
