On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:07:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Does everybody agree on these semantics, though? At least David
> > > > seems to think that mb/rmb/wmb aren't required to order normal
> > > > memory accesses against each other..
> > >
> > > Not on UP. On SMP, ordering i
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:24:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > > > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but
> > > > > > device
> > > > > > synchronisation does not. The question is that gi
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrm... I'm not sure I like the io_* name, I think it's even more
> confusing, people will never know when to use what ...
I'd've thought it more obvious, but given there are several types of I/O, some
of which might require different barriering
Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does everybody agree on these semantics, though? At least David seems
> to think that mb/rmb/wmb aren't required to order normal memory accesses
> against each other..
Ummm... I've just realised that your statement here is ambiguous. When you
say
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 08:24:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but
> > > > > device
> > > > > synchronisation does not. The question is that given this, whether
> > > > > mb() and friends can be NOPs on ARM or not (i.e
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 11:38:43PM +0200, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:15:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> > > > synchronisation does not. The question is that given this, whether
> >
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:43:53PM +, David Howells wrote:
>
> [Resend - this time with a comma in the addresses, not a dot]
>
> Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> > synchronisation does not. The que
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 02:15:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> > > synchronisation does not. The question is that given this, whether
> > > mb() and friends can be NOPs on ARM or not (i.e. whether mb() is
> > >
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 13:43 +, David Howells wrote:
> [Resend - this time with a comma in the addresses, not a dot]
>
> Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> > synchronisation does not. The question is t
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:43:53PM +, David Howells wrote:
> > [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> > synchronisation does not. The question is that given this, whether
> > mb() and friends can be NOPs on ARM or not (i.e. whether mb() is
> > supposed
[Resend - this time with a comma in the addresses, not a dot]
Lennert Buytenhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ background: On ARM, SMP synchronisation does need barriers but device
> synchronisation does not. The question is that given this, whether
> mb() and friends can be NOPs on ARM or
11 matches
Mail list logo
