On Mon, 2014-11-17 at 13:54 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > What would you think of the name "coherent_*mb()"? I would prefer to > avoid dma in the name since, at least in my mind, that implies MMIO.
I'm lazy, I like typing less, so I like dma_* but I don't object to coherent_* if at least one more person thinks it makes the semantics clearer :) > It also ties in well with dma_alloc_coherent/dma_free_coherent which is > what would typically be used to allocate the memory we would be using > the barrier to protect anyway. Agreed. > > And yes, in the same spirit, it would probably be good to try to > > eventually get rid of the plain "*mb()" functions, and perhaps call > > them "mmio_*mb()" to clarify that they are about ordering memory wrt > > mmio. > > > > Hmm? > > > > Linus > > I will work on pulling all of the coherent barrier cases out of using > the plain "*mb()" calls first. We need to sort that out before we could > look at renaming the plain barrier functions. Makes sense. Cheers, Ben. > - Alex > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
