lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Uses for memory barriers
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> How about ld_i(A) => ld_j(A)? This would say that both loads corresponded
> to the same store.

> > How about this instead: "A==>B" means that B sees the value stored by A,
> > and "A==B" means that A and B are both loads and they see the value from
> > the same store. That way we avoid putting a load on the left side of
> > "==>".
>
> My concern is that "==" might also have connotations of equal values from
> distinct stores.

Okay, here's another suggestion: ld_i(A) <=> ld_j(A). This avoids
connotations of ordering and indicates the symmetry of the relation: both
loads return data from the same store.

Alan

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-23 16:09    [W:0.137 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site