From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760142AbYE0WBS (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 18:01:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758442AbYE0WBD (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 18:01:03 -0400 Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:58406 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756924AbYE0WBB (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2008 18:01:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:46:51 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , David Miller , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, scottwood@freescale.com, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tpiepho@freescale.com 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> <1211922621.3286.80.camel@pasglop> <20080527223822.57306677@core> <20080527215328.GB22636@parisc-linux.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:53:28 -0600 Matthew Wilcox 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