[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]
Alan Cox writes:

> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:34:53AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > 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".
> Agreed. But if it is missing it may not be a bug. It depends what the lock
> actually protects.

True. What I want is a statement that if one of the purposes of the
spinlock is to provide ordering of the MMIO accesses, then leaving out
the mmiowb is a bug. I want it to be like the PCI DMA API in that
drivers are required to use it even on platforms where it's a no-op.


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: 2006-03-10 01:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean