On Tuesday, March 7, 2006 3:57 am, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 07 March 2006 20:23, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 18:30 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > True, I suppose. I should make it clear that these accessor > > > functions imply memory barriers, if indeed they do, > > > > They don't, but according to Documentation/DocBook/deviceiobook.tmpl > > they are performed by the compiler in the order specified. > > I don't think that's correct. Probably the documentation should > be fixed.
On ia64 I'm pretty sure it's true, and it seems like it should be in the general case too. The compiler shouldn't reorder uncached memory accesses with volatile semantics... Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
