[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080527092430.6380d962@core>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:24:30 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: benh@...nel.crashing.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
scottwood@...escale.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tpiepho@...escale.com
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
> It's just another complicated thing for driver authors to get wrong.
> The other side of the coin is of course the cost.
>
> The only thing I am absolutely sure of is that we should make a
> decision fast, document it, and just stick to it.
It's unfortunate that the __read/___write versions have other different
semantics. The default should definitely be ordered but having un-ordered
ones as an option would be good for zapping the hot paths that matter.
Most I/O paths aren't even worth the thinking time for non-ordered I/O.
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