[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #4]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Michael Buesch wrote:
> So what about:
> #define spin_lock_mmio(lock) spin_lock(lock)
> #define spin_unlock_mmio(lock) do { spin_unlock(lock); mmiowb(); } while (0)

You need to put the mmiowb() inside the spinlock.

Yes, that is painful. But the point being that if it's outside, then when
somebody else gets the lock, the previous lock-owners MMIO stores may
still be in flight, which is what you didn't want in the first place.

Anyway, no need to make a new name for it, since you might as well just
use the mmiowb() explicitly. At least until this has been shown to be a
really common pattern (it clearly isn't, right now ;)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.177 / U:2.260 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site