[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <537F60E0.1060307@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 07:53:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"broonie@...aro.org" <broonie@...aro.org>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/18] x86: io: implement dummy relaxed accessor macros
for writes
On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each other...
>
> What do you think?
>
I think "I would like" isn't a very good motivation. What are the
semantics of these things supposed to be? It seems more than a bit odd
to require them to be ordered with respect to each other and everything
else (which is what a memory clobber does) and then call them "relaxed".
-hpa
--
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