[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    [W:0.020 / U:26.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site