lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #4]
Date
On Friday 10 March 2006 00:56, you wrote:
>
> 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.

Ok, sorry. That was a typo.
I should not do more than 3 things at the same time. :)

> 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 ;)

Ok, so maybe it is best if every device creates its own macros
for convenience (if needed => if it is a common pattern
in the scope of the driver).

Example:
#define bcm43xx_lock(bcm, flags) spin_lock_irqsave(&(bcm)->lock, flags)
#define bcm43xx_unlock(bcm, flags) do { mmiowb(); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(bcm)->lock, flags); } while (0)

--
Greetings Michael.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-10 01:11    [W:0.065 / U:11.912 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site