[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7131d547746a998fcec74d1c091f9f6a@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:15:51 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rpjday@...dspring.com, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com, zlynx@....org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
davem@...emloft.net, wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
> Please check the definition of "cache coherence".
Which of the twelve thousand such definitions? :-)
> Summary: the CPU is indeed within its rights to execute loads and
> stores
> to a single variable out of order, -but- only if it gets the same
> result
> that it would have obtained by executing them in order. Which means
> that
> any reordering of accesses by a single CPU to a single variable will be
> invisible to the software.
I'm still not sure if that applies to all architectures.
Doesn't matter anyway, let's kill this thread :-)
Segher
-
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