[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060715022233.GA1578@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:22:33 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/02] remove set_wmb - doc update
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:05:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> There are some more advanced barrier functions:
>
> (*) set_mb(var, value)
> - (*) set_wmb(var, value)
>
> - These assign the value to the variable and then insert at least a write
> - barrier after it, depending on the function. They aren't guaranteed to
> + This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts at least a write
> + barrier after it, depending on the function. It isn't guaranteed to
> insert anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation.
"There is one more advanced barrier function"? ;-) Or did you want to
remove set_mb()?
Plus, the "depending on the function" bit means "respectively". So what
you really want as help is something like:
This assigns the value to the variable and then inserts a
barrier after the assignment. It isn't guaranteed to insert
anything more than a compiler barrier in a UP compilation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists