From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:48095 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751398AbWCGRhU (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:37:20 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <5041.1141417027@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <5041.1141417027@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <32518.1141401780@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <1146.1141404346@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Subject: Re: Memory barriers and spin_unlock safety Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:36:59 +0000 Message-ID: <31420.1141753019@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: Linus Torvalds , akpm@osdl.org, ak@suse.de, mingo@redhat.com, jblunck@suse.de, bcrl@linux.intel.com, matthew@wil.cx, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Howells wrote: > I suspect, then, that x86_64 should not have an SFENCE for smp_wmb(), and > that only io_wmb() should have that. Hmmm... We don't actually have io_wmb()... Should the following be added to all archs? io_mb() io_rmb() io_wmb() David