[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0611212116560.11777-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:17:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Things may not be quite as bad as they appear. On many architectures the
> > store-mb-load pattern will work as expected. (In fact, I don't know which
> > architectures it might fail on.)
>
> Several weak-memory-ordering CPUs. :-/
Of the CPUs supported by Linux, do you know which ones will work with
store-mb-load and which ones won't?
Alan
-
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