[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080821164809.GL6690@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:48:09 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
jmerkey@...fmountaingroup.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb: Merkey's Linux Kernel Debugger 2.6.27-rc4
released
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:18:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > No, I haven't seen the drafts
>
> Ok, I have looked at the draft now, and I don't think I was overly
> pessimistic.
>
> If I read it right, all the memory ordering operations are defined for
> _single_ objects. So if you want to do the kernel kind of memory ordering
> where you specify ordering requirements independently of the actual
> accesses (perhaps because the accesses are in some helper function that
> doesn't care, but then you want to "finalize" the thing by stating a
> sequence point), it seems to be impossible with current drafts.
You are looking for atomic_fence() on page 1168 (1154 virtual) of the
most recent draft. The current semantics are not correct, but this is
being worked. And yes, it does currently have a variable associated with
it, but it acts as a bare fence nevertheless. There is a proposal to
drop the variable. As you said in a previous email, design by committee.
> Oh, well. Nothing lost. I didn't expect the thing to work.
;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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