From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:55507 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754699AbXHKIsm (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:48:42 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <46BCC26B.6080600@redhat.com> References: <46BCC26B.6080600@redhat.com> <46BB46B2.60808@redhat.com> <20070809134150.GA14890@shell.boston.redhat.com> <2708.1186737826@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:47:51 +0100 Message-ID: <7680.1186822071@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Chris Snook Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, wensong@linux-vs.org, horms@verge.net.au, wjiang@resilience.com, cfriesen@nortel.com, zlynx@acm.org, rpjday@mindspring.com, jesper.juhl@gmail.com List-ID: Chris Snook wrote: > cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For non-smp > architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt handlers. Some > drivers do use atomic_* operations. I'm not sure that actually answers my question. Why not smp_rmb()? David