On 6/4/22 14:51, Roman Kagan wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 01:30:54PM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
It seems that aio_wait_kick always required a memory barrier
or atomic operation in the caller, but nobody actually
took care of doing it.
Let's put the barrier in the function instea
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 01:30:54PM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> It seems that aio_wait_kick always required a memory barrier
> or atomic operation in the caller, but nobody actually
> took care of doing it.
>
> Let's put the barrier in the function instead, and pair it
> with another
Am 24.05.2022 um 19:30 hat Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito geschrieben:
> It seems that aio_wait_kick always required a memory barrier
> or atomic operation in the caller, but nobody actually
> took care of doing it.
>
> Let's put the barrier in the function instead, and pair it
> with another one in A
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 01:30:54PM -0400, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> It seems that aio_wait_kick always required a memory barrier
> or atomic operation in the caller, but nobody actually
> took care of doing it.
>
> Let's put the barrier in the function instead, and pair it
> with another
On 5/24/22 20:30, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
It seems that aio_wait_kick always required a memory barrier
or atomic operation in the caller, but nobody actually
took care of doing it.
Let's put the barrier in the function instead, and pair it
with another one in AIO_WAIT_WHILE. Read aio_w
It seems that aio_wait_kick always required a memory barrier
or atomic operation in the caller, but nobody actually
took care of doing it.
Let's put the barrier in the function instead, and pair it
with another one in AIO_WAIT_WHILE. Read aio_wait_kick()
comment for further explanation.
Suggested
