lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromMichael Buesch <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #4]
DateFri, 10 Mar 2006 00:45:09 +0100
On Friday 10 March 2006 00:34, you wrote:
> David Howells writes:
> 
> > +On some systems, I/O writes are not strongly ordered across all CPUs, and so
> > +locking should be used, and mmiowb() should be issued prior to unlocking the
> > +critical section.
> 
> I think we should say more strongly that mmiowb() is required where
> MMIO accesses are done under a spinlock, and that if your driver is
> missing them then that is a bug.  I don't think it makes sense to say
> that mmiowb is required "on some systems".

So what about:

#define spin_lock_mmio(lock)	spin_lock(lock)
#define spin_unlock_mmio(lock)	do { spin_unlock(lock); mmiowb(); } while (0)
#define spin_lock_mmio_irqsave(lock, flags)	spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags)
#define spin_unlock_mmio_irqrestore(lock, flags)	do { spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags); mmiowb(); } while (0)
-- 
Greetings Michael.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-09 23:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2008