From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B305BB7BB9 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:20:22 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Is volatile always verboten for FSL QE structures? From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Simon Richter In-Reply-To: <20091003095537.GA15992@honey.hogyros.de> References: <4AC60AD8.8030509@ruggedcom.com> <4AC61247.1030507@freescale.com> <4AC63112.7080404@ruggedcom.com> <20091002200848.06be4c5a@xilun.lan.proformatique.com> <20091003095537.GA15992@honey.hogyros.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:20:08 +1000 Message-Id: <1254568808.7122.21.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Making the target of foo volatile properly rechecks the condition on > each iteration. > > OTOH my PPC box runs fine, so I'm probably missing something obvious. Probably because the IO accessors do -both- volatile casts and add the barriers :-) Ben.