On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 21:40, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
> Well, I think it makes kind of sense. If we know we are
> returning to some place where nothing bad could happen
> with reordering ... well, so be it, don't use __set_...()
Oh, I see. If it returns to somewhere that immediately e.g. puts it on
a wait queue. In that case, yep: need the barrier version.
> And that would now really work when CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE=1 is required
> [after all, it is a write, so it'd need the equivalent of a wmb() or
> xchg()].
Is this a hint that your employer may have an x86 chip in the future
with weak ordering? :)
> Okay, changing that one too, just in case.
Good - better safe than sorry.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 22:00:22 EST