[bug #29655] linkat() fails because __file_name_lookup_at() problems

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #29655 (project hurd): Return value submitted at http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2010-04/msg00046.html ___ Reply to this item at: _

Re: cache coherency in DMA and MMIO

Da Zheng, le Sat 24 Apr 2010 19:39:58 +0800, a écrit : > If a variable doesn't have the volatile qualifier and If it is in a register > at > the moment it is modified by DMA, the value in the register is out-of-date. Yes, that's why the DMA order must use compiler memory barriers to prevent that:

Re: cache coherency in DMA and MMIO

On 10-4-24 下午6:37, Samuel Thibault wrote: >>> It does (or should do): such pointers have the __io qualifier. >> I checked the code of e1000 again. The data for MMIO is qualified by __iomem, > > Right, I hadn't checked the precise name :) > >> but the data in the transmission or receiving queues (

[bug #29655] linkat() fails because __file_name_lookup_at() problems

URL: Summary: linkat() fails because __file_name_lookup_at() problems Project: The GNU Hurd Submitted by: pochu Submitted on: Sat 24 Apr 2010 12:50:52 PM CEST Category: glibc

Re: cache coherency in DMA and MMIO

Da Zheng, le Sat 24 Apr 2010 18:29:50 +0800, a écrit : > On 10-4-23 下午7:37, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Da Zheng, le Fri 23 Apr 2010 14:51:22 +0800, a écrit : > >> They are not just one or two variables. They are an array of structure > >> variables. Should I define all fields of the structure with

Re: cache coherency in DMA and MMIO

On 10-4-23 下午7:37, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Da Zheng, le Fri 23 Apr 2010 14:51:22 +0800, a écrit : >> They are not just one or two variables. They are an array of structure >> variables. Should I define all fields of the structure with volatile >> qualifier? > > You can qualify the whole structur