From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk
	[81.2.110.250])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17858DDE1F
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed, 28 May 2008 08:00:52 +1000 (EST)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:46:51 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Subject: Re: MMIO and gcc re-ordering issue
Message-ID: <20080527224651.671fc454@core>
In-Reply-To: <20080527215328.GB22636@parisc-linux.org>
References: <1211852026.3286.36.camel@pasglop>
	<20080526.184047.88207142.davem@davemloft.net>
	<1211854540.3286.42.camel@pasglop>
	<20080526.192812.184590464.davem@davemloft.net>
	<1211859542.3286.46.camel@pasglop>
	<alpine.LFD.1.10.0805270833060.2958@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<1211922621.3286.80.camel@pasglop>
	<alpine.LFD.1.10.0805271421570.2958@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20080527223822.57306677@core>
	<20080527215328.GB22636@parisc-linux.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	tpiepho@freescale.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, scottwood@freescale.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:53:28 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:38:22PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > re-ordering, even though I doubt it will be visible in practice. So if you 
> > > use the "__" versions, you'd better have barriers even on x86!
> > 
> > Are we also going to have __ioread*/__iowrite* ?
> 
> Didn't we already define ioread*() to have loose semantics?

The ATA layer doesn't think so.

Alan