[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160518180558.GI3206@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 20:05:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ramana.radhakrishnan@....com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/15] Provide atomics and bitops implemented with
ISO C++11 atomics
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:10:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> (1) We could weaken the kernel memory model to for the benefit of arches
> that have instructions that employ explicit acquire/release barriers -
> but that may cause data races to occur based on assumptions we've
> already made. Note, however, that powerpc already seems to have a
> weaker memory model.
Linus always vehemently argues against weakening our memory model.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists