[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock
On 07/14/2010 11:08 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Noone has talked about strict ordering between volatiles and
> (non-volatile) memory ops in general. I have been talking about
> volatile to volatile ordering, and I thought I'd been very clear about that.


> H.J., we're having a debate about the actual semantics of "volatile",
> especially "asm volatile" in gcc. In particular, I believe that
> volatile operations should not be possible to reorder with regards to
> each other, and the kernel depends on that fact.

I think we should consider that deprecated and rely on dependencies and


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-14 20:19    [W:0.417 / U:2.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site