Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | | Subject | Re: Memory Barrier Definitions | | Date | Tue, 14 May 2002 09:28:19 +1000 |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205130938380.19524-100000@home.transmeta.com> you wr ite: > We're _not_ going to make up a complicated, big fancy new model. We might > tweak the current one a bit. And if that means that some architectures get > heavier barriers than they strictly need, then so be it. There are two > overriding concerns: > - sanity: maybe it's better to have one mb() that is a sledgehammer but > obvious, than it is to have many subtle variations that are just asking > for subtle bugs.
NO NO NO. Look at what actually happens now:
void init_bh(int nr, void (*routine)(void)) { bh_base[nr] = routine; mb(); } Now, what is this mb() for? Are you sure?
If we can come up with a better fit between the macros and what the code are trying to actually do, we win, even if they all map to the same thing *today*. While we're there, if we can get something that fits with different architectures, great.
Clearer? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |