Re: [PATCH] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63()

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

> > I used a rmb() so this is also safe for mixed usages in and out of 
> > interrupt context.  On the architecture I care about this is turned into
> > a simple compiler barrier and therefore doesn't make a difference, while 
> > smp_rmb() is a noop which isn't right.
> > 
> 
> Hum ? smp_rmb() is turned into a compiler barrier on !SMP architectures.
> Turning it into a NOP would be broken. Actually, ARM defines it as a
> barrier().

Oh, right. I got confused somehow with read_barrier_depends().

> I *think* that smp_rmb() would be enough, supposing the access to memory
> is done in program order wrt local interrupts in UP. This is basically
> Steven's question, which has not received any clear answer yet. I'd like
> to know what others think about it.

In the mean time a pure rmb() is the safest thing to do now.  Once we 
can convince ourselves that out-of-order reads are always rolled back 
upon the arrival of an interrupt then this could be relaxed.


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/