Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:34:17 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock |
| |
On 07/14/2010 10:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > If gcc ever starts reordering volatile operations, including "asm > volatile", the kernel will break, and will be unfixable. Just about > every single driver will break. All over the kernel we're explicitly or > implicitly making the assumption that volatile operations are strictly > ordered by the compiler with respect to each other. >
Can you give an example? All the cases I've seen rely on the ordering properties of "memory" clobbers, which is sound. (And volatile variables are a completely unrelated issue, of course.)
J
| |