Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: I/O memory barriers vs SMP memory barriers | Date | Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:04:11 +0100 |
| |
Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org> wrote:
> Does everybody agree on these semantics, though? At least David seems > to think that mb/rmb/wmb aren't required to order normal memory accesses > against each other..
Ummm... I've just realised that your statement here is ambiguous. When you say "aren't required to", do you mean "aren't necessary to" or do you mean "don't have to"? Isn't English a fun language?
Anyway, what I meant is that mb() and co. as they stand _must_ do everything smp_mb() and co do respectively, _in_ _addition_ to other side effects.
mb() implies smp_mb() rmb() implies smp_rmb() wmb() implies smp_wmb() ...
David - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |