[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C3DF519.6030406@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:34:17 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point
for pvclock
On 07/14/2010 10:30 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> If gcc ever starts reordering volatile operations, including "asm
> volatile", the kernel will break, and will be unfixable. Just about
> every single driver will break. All over the kernel we're explicitly or
> implicitly making the assumption that volatile operations are strictly
> ordered by the compiler with respect to each other.
>
Can you give an example? All the cases I've seen rely on the ordering
properties of "memory" clobbers, which is sound. (And volatile
variables are a completely unrelated issue, of course.)
J
--
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