[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805271456060.2958@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
scottwood@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpiepho@...escale.com
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > re-ordering, even though I doubt it will be visible in practice. So if you
> > use the "__" versions, you'd better have barriers even on x86!
>
> Are we also going to have __ioread*/__iowrite* ?
I doubt there is any reason to. Let's just keep them very strictly
ordered.
> Also is the sematics of __readl/__writel defined for all architectures -
> I used it ages ago in the i2o drivers for speed and it got removed
> because it didn't build on some platforms.
Agreed - I'm not sure the __ versions are really worth it. We have them,
but the semantics are subtle enough that most drivers will never care
enough to really use them.
I would suggest using them mainly for architecture-specific drivers, on
architectures where it actually matters (which is not the case on x86).
Linus
--
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