On 4/17/2018 6:53 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2018-04-17 2:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> The correct terminology here would be to use observability. Yes, it can be
>> cached in whatever part of the system for some amount of time as long as
>> PCI device sees it in the correct order.
>>
>>
On 4/17/2018 6:53 PM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 2018-04-17 2:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> The correct terminology here would be to use observability. Yes, it can be
>> cached in whatever part of the system for some amount of time as long as
>> PCI device sees it in the correct order.
>>
>>
On 2018-04-17 2:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
The correct terminology here would be to use observability. Yes, it can be
cached in whatever part of the system for some amount of time as long as
PCI device sees it in the correct order.
Let's do this exercise.
1. OS writes to memory for some
On 2018-04-17 2:28 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
The correct terminology here would be to use observability. Yes, it can be
cached in whatever part of the system for some amount of time as long as
PCI device sees it in the correct order.
Let's do this exercise.
1. OS writes to memory for some
On 4/17/2018 11:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 10:13 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you gave an example of the actual problem you're trying
>>> to fix we could assess if it affects parisc.
>>
>> Let me clarify myself here. Maybe, there is a
On 4/17/2018 11:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 10:13 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you gave an example of the actual problem you're trying
>>> to fix we could assess if it affects parisc.
>>
>> Let me clarify myself here. Maybe, there is a
On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 10:13 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> >
> > Perhaps if you gave an example of the actual problem you're trying
> > to fix we could assess if it affects parisc.
>
> Let me clarify myself here. Maybe, there is a better solution.
>
> /* assign
On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 10:13 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> >
> > Perhaps if you gave an example of the actual problem you're trying
> > to fix we could assess if it affects parisc.
>
> Let me clarify myself here. Maybe, there is a better solution.
>
> /* assign
Hi James,
>
> Perhaps if you gave an example of the actual problem you're trying to
> fix we could assess if it affects parisc.
Let me clarify myself here. Maybe, there is a better solution.
/* assign ownership */
desc->status = DEVICE_OWN;
/*
Hi James,
>
> Perhaps if you gave an example of the actual problem you're trying to
> fix we could assess if it affects parisc.
Let me clarify myself here. Maybe, there is a better solution.
/* assign ownership */
desc->status = DEVICE_OWN;
/*
On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 00:08 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> parisc architecture seems to be mapping readX() and readX_relaxed()
> APIs
> to __raw_readX() API.
>
> __raw_readX() API doesn't provide any kind of ordering guarantees.
> commit 032d59e1cde9 ("io: define stronger ordering for the default
>
On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 00:08 -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> parisc architecture seems to be mapping readX() and readX_relaxed()
> APIs
> to __raw_readX() API.
>
> __raw_readX() API doesn't provide any kind of ordering guarantees.
> commit 032d59e1cde9 ("io: define stronger ordering for the default
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
