On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 16:59 +1100, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Michael,
>
> > Wouldn't this still be a problem on a UP kernel?
>
> I don't believe so - stores should be ordered with respect to the
> current CPU, and in the UP case we still get a barrier().
But what if the CPU decides to do the store t
Michael,
> Wouldn't this still be a problem on a UP kernel?
I don't believe so - stores should be ordered with respect to the
current CPU, and in the UP case we still get a barrier().
However, perhaps there are other considerations with the HV that I'm not
aware of. Anyone?
Cheers,
Jeremy
_
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 13:55 +1100, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> Currently, we don't enforce any ordering for updates to the lppaca
> when enabling dtl logging, so we may end up enabling logging before the
> index fields have been established.
>
> This change adds a smp_wmb() before doing the actual enable
