From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:11:49 +1000 Message-Id: <199908120711.RAA30446@tango.anu.edu.au> From: Paul Mackerras To: rth@cygnus.com CC: dje@watson.ibm.com, Jes.Sorensen@cern.ch, Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, linux-fbdev@vuser.vu.union.edu, rth@cygnus.com In-reply-to: <19990811225231.B14713@cygnus.com> (message from Richard Henderson on Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:52:31 -0700) Subject: Re: [linux-fbdev] Re: readl() and friends and eieio on PPC Reply-to: Paul.Mackerras@cs.anu.edu.au References: <9908120516.AA43198@marc.watson.ibm.com> <19990811225231.B14713@cygnus.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Richard Henderson wrote: > I prefer high-performance drivers. Sure, so do I. But when I can get safety as well, for the cost of one extra cpu cycle per device access, which can probably be overlapped with the device access anyway, I think it's a good deal. On alpha, does wmb() stop a subsequent load from being moved ahead of a previous store? Or do you have to use mb() to get that effect? Paul. [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. Please check http://lists.linuxppc.org/ ]] [[ and http://www.linuxppc.org/ for useful information before posting. ]]