From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: evtchn_do_upcall() barrier between upcall_pending and
	pending_sel
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:18:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20080508101829.GC4365@implementation.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
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: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hello,

In evtchn_do_upcall() there is a barrier between setting upcall_pending
and pending_sel, which makes sense to avoid losing events, however I
don't understand why it is a rmb(). memory-barriers.txt says that rmb()
only provides ordering of reads, not stores.  Shouldn't that be a wmb()
instead then?

Samuel