[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6698eda3-977b-902f-ba23-89cfd674c121@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 19:16:23 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
parri.andrea@...il.com, will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
boqun.feng@...il.com, npiggin@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
j.alglave@....ac.uk, luc.maranget@...ia.fr, paulmck@...nel.org,
akiyks@...il.com, dlustig@...dia.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/memory-barriers.txt: Improve documentation for
writel() usage
On 9/15/22 12:01, Parav Pandit wrote:
> The cited commit [1] describes that when using writel(), explcit wmb()
> is not needed. However, it should have said that dma_wmb() is not
> needed.
>
> Hence update the example to be more accurate that matches the current
> implementation and document section of dma_wmb()/dma_rmb().
>
> [1] commit 5846581e3563 ("locking/memory-barriers.txt: Fix broken DMA vs. MMIO ordering example")
Just say the blamed commit without using numbered references.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists