From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jes Sorensen Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:13:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] spin_unlock() problem Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "David" = David Mosberger writes: >>>>> On 07 Apr 2003 18:09:44 -0400, Jes Sorensen said: David> Oops, sorry, I got it exactly backwards. ;-( So much for giving David> a "quick" reply... Heh, for a quick answer you sure were very convincing. I have convinced myself for and against this one several times so far ;-) Jes> In other words we are only guarantied that [r2] is valid when Jes> [r3] appears but have no guarantie that [r4] doesn't show up on Jes> the bus prior to [r3]? David> I wouldn't use the word "valid" here, but yes, (2) and (3) are David> NOT ordered. This is the situation I was trying to fix, adding a wmb() to spin_unlock() seems the only way to get around it as far as I can see. I take it you agree then? Cheers, Jes