[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7680.1186822071@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:47:51 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org, horms@...ge.net.au,
wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com, zlynx@....org,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
> cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For non-smp
> architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt handlers. Some
> drivers do use atomic_* operations.
I'm not sure that actually answers my question. Why not smp_rmb()?
David
-
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