[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18122.45437.807239.395869@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:33:49 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
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
Russell King writes:
> Let me say it more clearly: On ARM, it is impossible to perform atomic
> operations on MMIO space.
Actually, no one is suggesting that we try to do that at all.
The discussion about RMW ops on MMIO space started with a comment
attributed to the gcc developers that one reason why gcc on x86
doesn't use instructions that do RMW ops on volatile variables is that
volatile is used to mark MMIO addresses, and there was some
uncertainty about whether (non-atomic) RMW ops on x86 could be used on
MMIO. This is in regard to the question about why gcc on x86 always
moves a volatile variable into a register before doing anything to it.
So the whole discussion is irrelevant to ARM, PowerPC and any other
architecture except x86[-64].
Paul.
-
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