Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:52:12 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Uses for memory barriers |
| |
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:07:28AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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.
Good point -- will try something like this.
Thanx, Paul - 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/
| |