From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:13:16 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH] ?mb() -> smp_?mb() conversion Message-ID: <20050322131316.GC21986@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20050321150619.2ea75257.davem@davemloft.net> <20050321225904.GF23908@krispykreme> <20072.1111488229@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20072.1111488229@redhat.com> Sender: To: David Howells Cc: "David S. Miller" , Anton Blanchard , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:43:49AM +0000, David Howells wrote: > David S. Miller wrote: > > > If I remember correctly, the ?mb() routines _were_ the original > > SMP memory barriers. > > Would it be worth renaming the mb/rmb/wmb to io_mb/io_rmb/io_wmb? After all, I > believe they should only be used to flush I/O memory accesses. This would, I > think, make the distinction between memory barriers for I/O and memory > barriers for SMP more obvious. Are you joking or genuinely confused? -- "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain