>> The I/O accessor functions enforce the necessary ordering >> already I believe. > > Hmm, I never followed those discussions last year about IO ordering, > and > I can't see where (if) it was documented anywhere :(
The comments in system.h weren't updated with the last fix, I think. > It appears that legacy code is handled by defining the old IO > accessors to > be completely ordered, and introducing new __raw_ variants that are not > (OTOH, it seems like other architectures are implementing __raw prefix > as > inorder unless there is a _relaxed postfix). __raw_XX() is for platform code only, which can do the needed barriers without having to use the heavy hammer like everything else unfortunately does. > Drivers are definitely using these __raw_ accessors, and from a quick > look, they do appear to be hoping that *mb() is going to order access > for > them. Which drivers? Segher _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
