[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2bdb04581125f22122f1d230e991ea92@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:02:01 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: 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,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.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
>> 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.
Sure, your CPU doesn't have RMW instructions -- how to emulate
those if you don't have them is a totally different thing.
Segher
-
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