On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> OK, but we'd have some kind of functions that are called not to
> serialise the CPUs, but to serialise the IO. It would be up to
> the calling code to already provide CPU synchronisation.
>
> serialize_io(); / unserialize_io(); / a nicer name
We could call it "mmiowb()", for example?
Radical idea, I know.
> If we could pass in some kind of relevant resoure (eg. the IO
> memory or device or something), then we might even be able to
> put debug checks there to ensure two CPUs are never inside the
> same critical IO section at once.
We could certainly give it the spinlock as an argument.
Linus
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
