[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq0venufslz.fsf@jaguar.mkp.net>
Date: 11 Sep 2006 09:19:36 -0400
From: Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeff@...zik.org,
paulus@...ba.org, torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org, segher@...nel.crashing.org, jeremy@....com
Subject: Re: Opinion on ordering of writel vs. stores to RAM
>>>>> "Ben" == Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> writes:
Ben> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 23:23 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Ar Llu, 2006-09-11 am 07:25 +1000, ysgrifennodd Benjamin
>> Herrenschmidt: > I'm copying that from a private discussion I
>> had. Please let me know if > you have comments. This proposal
>> includes some questions too so please > answer :)
>>
>> Looks sane and Linus seems to like mmiowb. Only other question:
>> what are the guarantees of memcpy_to/fromio. Does it access the
>> memory in ordered fashion or not, does it guarantee only ordering
>> at the end of the copy or during it ?
Ben> Well, Linus is also ok with writel not ordering memory an IO
Ben> accesses :) Though he also mentioned that if we go that route
Ben> (which is what we have now in fact), we take the burden of having
Ben> to test and fix drivers who don't get it...
We have to do this on SN2 anyway, so this way we can benefit from
each other's work :)
Cheers,
Jes
-
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