On Mon, 31 May 2004 15:23:00 +0200 Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now that you're fixing this -- Is an unsigned char variable considered > > enough? I've heard about atomicity concerns on ARM, and also there might > > be problems with unflushed caches - mb()s may be needed ... > > If so, IMHO we have a much larger problem than just this patch. > IIRC the kernel may assume that caches are synchronized. I need > more input on this to give a definite and sensible answer. No, Oliver - caches ARE consistent (and that's the proper term). However, do not forget about store ordering. That's what mb() does (and it's a gcc barrier also). -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
