On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > I didn't quite understand what you said here, so I'll tell what I think: > > > > * foo() is a compiler barrier if the definition of foo() is invisible to > > the compiler at a callsite. > > > > * foo() is also a compiler barrier if the definition of foo() includes > > a barrier, and it is inlined at the callsite. > > > > If the above is wrong, or if there's something else at play as well, > > do let me know. > > [...] > If a function is not completely visible to the compiler (so it can't > determine whether a barrier could be in it or not), then it must always > assume it will contain a barrier so it always does the right thing. Yup, that's what I'd said just a few sentences above, as you can see. I was actually asking for "elaboration" on "how a compiler determines that function foo() (say foo == schedule), even when it cannot see that it has a barrier(), as you'd mentioned, is a 'sleeping' function" actually, and whether compilers have a "notion of sleep to automatically assume a compiler barrier whenever such a sleeping function foo() is called". But I think you've already qualified the discussion to this kernel, so okay, I shouldn't nit-pick anymore. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
