From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Linux questions
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:29:58 +0100
Message-ID: <20071203112958.GB4930@implementation.labri.fr>
References: <4753F583.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4753F583.76E4.0078.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Jan Beulich, le Mon 03 Dec 2007 11:24:35 +0000, a =E9crit :
> 2) What is the reason for the inconsistent use of rmb() vs. barrier() i=
n
> time-xen.c? It would seem to me that rmb() should be sufficient in all
> cases.

rmb() is more powerful than barrier(), not the converse.

Samuel