From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:53:28 -0600 Message-ID: <20080527215328.GB22636@parisc-linux.org> References: <1211852026.3286.36.camel@pasglop> <20080526.184047.88207142.davem@davemloft.net> <1211854540.3286.42.camel@pasglop> <20080526.192812.184590464.davem@davemloft.net> <1211859542.3286.46.camel@pasglop> <1211922621.3286.80.camel@pasglop> <20080527223822.57306677@core> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:44142 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758398AbYE0Vxp (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 17:53:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080527223822.57306677@core> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , David Miller , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, scottwood@freescale.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tpiepho@freescale.com On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:38:22PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > re-ordering, even though I doubt it will be visible in practice. So if you > > use the "__" versions, you'd better have barriers even on x86! > > Are we also going to have __ioread*/__iowrite* ? Didn't we already define ioread*() to have loose semantics? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."