[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1453921746-16178-4-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 19:02:44 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH v5 3/5] x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
On x86, we *do* still use the non-nop rmb/wmb for IO barriers, but even
that is generally questionable.
Leave them around as historial unless somebody can point to a case where
they care about the performance, but tweak the comment so people
don't think they are strictly required in all cases.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
index a291745..bfb28ca 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
/*
* Force strict CPU ordering.
- * And yes, this is required on UP too when we're talking
+ * And yes, this might be required on UP too when we're talking
* to devices.
*/
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists