[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070820224859.GA16162@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:48:59 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
horms@...ge.net.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rpjday@...dspring.com,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
satyam@...radead.org, zlynx@....org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 12:04:17AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> And no, RMW on MMIO isn't "problematic" at all, either.
>
> An RMW op is a read op, a modify op, and a write op, all rolled
> into one opcode. But three actual operations.
Maybe for some CPUs, but not all. ARM for instance can't use the
load exclusive and store exclusive instructions to MMIO space.
This means placing atomic_t or bitops into MMIO space is a definite
no-go on ARM. It breaks.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists