On 05/23/2014 09:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an email
>> to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the header gets too
>> big and vger chokes and davem slaps
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an email
> to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the header gets too
> big and vger chokes and davem slaps you.
The arch maintainers are (supposed to be) on
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 09:12:31AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an
> > email to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the
> > header gets too big and vger chokes and davem slaps you.
> >
> > So while its possibly
On 05/23/2014 08:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>
>>> There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but,
>>> again, I didn't CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of
>>>
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but, again, I didn't
> > CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of interest this sort of stuff
> > generates amongst kernel
On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but, again, I didn't
> CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of interest this sort of stuff
> generates amongst kernel developers is close to zero so I only included
> people I thought cared
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:20:08PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/23/2014 07:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:53:20PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to
On 05/23/2014 07:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:53:20PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each
>>> other...
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>
>> I think "I
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:53:20PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each
> > other...
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> I think "I would like" isn't a very good motivation. What
On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each other...
>
> What do you think?
>
I think "I would like" isn't a very good motivation. What are the
semantics of these things supposed to be? It seems more than a bit odd
to
Hi Peter,
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:15:27PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 09:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > write{b,w,l,q}_relaxed are implemented by some architectures in order to
> > permit memory-mapped I/O accesses with weaker barrier semantics than the
> > non-relaxed
Hi Peter,
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:15:27PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/22/2014 09:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
write{b,w,l,q}_relaxed are implemented by some architectures in order to
permit memory-mapped I/O accesses with weaker barrier semantics than the
non-relaxed variants.
On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each other...
What do you think?
I think I would like isn't a very good motivation. What are the
semantics of these things supposed to be? It seems more than a bit odd
to require
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:53:20PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each
other...
What do you think?
I think I would like isn't a very good motivation. What are the
On 05/23/2014 07:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:53:20PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each
other...
What do you think?
I think I would like isn't a very good
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:20:08PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/23/2014 07:57 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:53:20PM +0100, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/23/2014 07:46 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
I would like the relaxed accessors to be ordered with respect to each
On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but, again, I didn't
CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of interest this sort of stuff
generates amongst kernel developers is close to zero so I only included
people I thought cared on CC
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but, again, I didn't
CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of interest this sort of stuff
generates amongst kernel
On 05/23/2014 08:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:43:01AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 05/23/2014 08:34 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
There is also a documentation patch [1] in this series but,
again, I didn't CC everybody on it. Sorry, but the level of
interest this sort
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 09:12:31AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an
email to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the
header gets too big and vger chokes and davem slaps you.
So while its possibly desirable to do
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an email
to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the header gets too
big and vger chokes and davem slaps you.
The arch maintainers are
On 05/23/2014 09:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
So the one issue I had with that, is that if one tries to send an email
to all arch maintainers + linux-arch + linux-kernel, the header gets too
big and vger chokes and
On 05/22/2014 09:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> write{b,w,l,q}_relaxed are implemented by some architectures in order to
> permit memory-mapped I/O accesses with weaker barrier semantics than the
> non-relaxed variants.
>
> This patch adds dummy macros for the read and write accessors to x86,
>
write{b,w,l,q}_relaxed are implemented by some architectures in order to
permit memory-mapped I/O accesses with weaker barrier semantics than the
non-relaxed variants.
This patch adds dummy macros for the read and write accessors to x86,
which simply expand to the non-relaxed variants. Note that
write{b,w,l,q}_relaxed are implemented by some architectures in order to
permit memory-mapped I/O accesses with weaker barrier semantics than the
non-relaxed variants.
This patch adds dummy macros for the read and write accessors to x86,
which simply expand to the non-relaxed variants. Note that
On 05/22/2014 09:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
write{b,w,l,q}_relaxed are implemented by some architectures in order to
permit memory-mapped I/O accesses with weaker barrier semantics than the
non-relaxed variants.
This patch adds dummy macros for the read and write accessors to x86,
which
26 matches
Mail list logo
