Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: ordered memory access | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 30 Sep 1999 17:34:47 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "Bret" == Bret Indrelee <bindrelee@sbs-cp.com> writes:
>> The case that Manfred brought up was perfectly valid - we could do >> __raw_atomic_foo() functions to do it if there is a need. We could >> also just decide that atomic_foo() does not guarantee ordering.
Bret> Since you already have separate functions for memory barriers, I Bret> would think not guarenteeing ordering would be the sensible Bret> thing to do. Keep it simple.
Thats how I thought writel() was supposed to work. However making them guarantee ordering means that new users do now get `cheated' by mistake and the people who looked into it can use optimized versions.
Keeping it simple could be interpreted both ways here ;-)
Jes
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |