[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:0.018 / U:9.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site